Full text of "The Church order commentary"

See other formats

Class _ !

Book

■ .

The Church Order Commentary

The

CHURCH ORDER
COMMENTARY

BEING

A Brief Explanation of the Church Order
of the Christian Reformed Church

IDZERD VAN DELLEN, Minister
First Chr. Ref. Church, Denver, Colo.

AND

MARTIN MONSMA, Minister
Second Chr. Ref. Church, Pella, la.

ZONDERVAN PUBLISHING HOUSE

MICHIGAN

GRAND RAPIDS

“Quoted from the American Standard
Edition of the Revised Bible by permission
of its copyright owner , The International
Council of Religious Education ”

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

EIGHT-FIFTEEN FRANKLIN STREET
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

RECEIVED

MAR 2 1 1941

Introduction

The esteemed authors of this Commentary on the Church Order of
the Christian Reformed Church have asked me to introduce their book
to its readers by way of a foreword. In complying with their request
I need not pause to acquaint you with the Church Order which they
felt impelled to explain. The instrument is well known and its provi-
sions are familiar to all the office-bearers and to many members of
the church that operates under it.

It may not be superfluous, however, to observe that the document,
familiar though its text may be, is not above the need of interpreta-
tion. Mere reading of the Church Order leaves that impression with-
out fail; while its study is well calculated to raise the question: un-
derstandest thou what thou readest ? And to say no more, the execu-
tion of its several provisions on the part of the officers of the church,
particularly on the part of those whose duty it is to administer the
affairs of the church in its graduated series of assemblies, does not
fail to bring home to them the need of a competent commentator.
The extreme brevity of the Church Order and its predominantly ar-
chaic editorial cast are not unrelated to this situation.

The authors of the present volume must have prepared it under a
sense of constraint. Each of them is crowded with pastoral labors as
the regular Minister of a church. Moreover, both are engaged in
journalistic activities. The book which they produced collaboratively
is conclusive evidence that they took a far from inconsiderable bur-
den upon themselves when they undertook to write it. True, they
leaned heavily upon certain Dutch canonists whom they accordingly
give due credit for aid rendered. But even so, their own labors as
embodied in the sizeable book before you constitutes ample proof of
a fine measure of industry, perseverance and devotion.

I have not been so informed by the respected authors of this Com-
mentary, but I feel wholly confident nevertheless that they would
have all their readers constantly bear in mind at least two pertinent
facts as they turn to this volume for light. The first is that this is
not an official, that is, synodically approved, commentary on the
Church Order. It carries no more weight than the intrinsic correct-
ness of the positions taken in the book will bear. And the second is
that not all the views propounded by the authors command the as-
sent of all who are able to judge of matters canonical.

A rather careful reading of this comparatively lengthy Commentary
has convinced me that it will prove to be a very useful manual indeed,
and that it will not fail to meet with the generous appreciation that
it deserves. I cherish the desire that this Commentary may have a
wide sale and that it may be consulted diligently and studied critically
in the interest of soundly Reformed canonical theory and practice in
the church which the authors dearly love and devotedly serve.

Grand Rapids, Mich. ,

S. VOLBEDA.

i’Oi' f f :;?]

. •:<iw •:■>) ’ :• . .

‘T ’ < • i

■ : ii: ■ f, •

: i » : H9i

■ . . • : .

) T< ■ r '.!••• w ■;/ • - . v . I

. “ - ■ 4

i 1 '• ...

. ■ ■' :

• n* ’ , . . I

"■ ' ' 1 h' '•r,*u . ■ ' /•' ■ :J i ■ - /;■: \v. ■ • •

> ;■ ■ i • 1 ' - ■ vi.-y's]

• ■» i 1 . . . ■ tr, > j : . ■ •' . •

i\ Ai ■«.( Wvr !kU v.\ w ■ •>>-;} . ■ • •

• ' t :

■/'tr. 1 , , \ A *=.: * ■ i;;'J •.»:?. ■„ ; .. • , J.

, 1 foil :m . •*» '• « • I i;\{i

■> 1 i f . ■ ■ ■. . i ! ■ .. ft* ■ . ■ • ,

if ■ v‘/f iq ■■ :>ci . ‘ i •• . : ■ . t \y :

> "'i"" ^ . ‘b . ' 1 ■ i; :

MO-

Preface

In the following pages the authors have endeavored to give a brief
exposition of the Church Order of Dort (1618-19) as amended by the
Synod of the Christian Reformed Churches in the year 1914.

For the benefit of the uninformed it may be said that the Christian
Reformed Church dates back to the year 1857. Some years previous,
(1847), a new migration movement from the shores of the Netherlands
to the United States began. Those who left the homeland in large
numbers and colonized especially in the regions of present-day Hol-
land, Michigan, and Pella, Iowa, were of Calvinistic stock theologically.

Ecclesiastically they were, in the main, members of the Secession
Church of Holland; (Christelijke Afgescheiden Kerk). This Secession
Church of Holland, dating back to 1834, was an off-shoot of the Es-
tablished or State Church of Holland (Hervormde Kerk) which had
become corrupt in doctrine and had set aside the historic form of gov-
ernment as last ratified by the great Synod of Dort, 1618-19.

As the re-organized and purified Churches of Holland had done in
1834, so the Christian Reformed Churches in 1857 restored the vener-
able Church Order of Dort as their rule and guide in matters of
church government. In these church governmental rules of order, the
founders of the Christian Reformed denomination found what they
believed to be the correct Biblical system of government for the
Church of Christ on earth. In the Church Order of Dort, these
Churches found a faithful reflection of church governmental principles
as developed in Reformation days under the influence of John Calvin
and other leading Bible students and Reformers.

But circumstances had changed considerably since Reformation and
post- Reformation days. The fundamental, basic principles of Re-
formed Church polity are drawn directly from Holy Writ. Even as
the Bible is ever the unchanging Word of God for all times and lands,
thus also — so the re-organized and purified Churches of the former
century held — the basic principles for church government drawn from
the Bible are the same for all times and all lands. But the applica-
tion of these basic principles will vary as times and conditions vary.
New conditions demand new approaches and adjustments.

The Secession Churches of Holland (1834) were greatly enriched
and strengthened by a second exodus from the corrupt State Church
toward the close of the former century (1886). This second secession
movement was largely under the leadership of the great Dr. Abraham
Kuyper. The Churches joining this secession were known as “de
Doleerende Kerken” (Latin, “doleo,” to be hurt; to be aggrieved).
These “Doleerende Kerken” and the Secession Churches of 1834
united in 1892 and adopted the name, the Reformed Churches of the
Netherlands (de Gereformeerde Kerken van Nederland). Now these
united Churches in the year 1905 revised several articles of the Church
Order and brought this treasured set of rules up-to-date. And the
Christian Reformed Churches here in the United States of America,
did the same in 1914 (Synod of 1914, Roseland, Chicago, Illinois). It

vii

Vlll

PREFACE

is this Church Order of Dort, 1618-19, as amended in 1914, which we
are seeking to explain in the present volume.

The name “Church Order” is of Dutch origin; it being a rendition
of the expression, “Kerkenordening.” The first regular Synod of the
Reformed Churches of Holland was held in Emden, Germany, in 1571.
Persecution and hostility made a gathering in the homeland inadvis-
able. Since the year 1571, Synod met at regular intervals. By 1581
the fundamental principles of church government had found expres-
sion and application in various synodical pronouncements. The Synod
of Middelburg, 1581, gathered these into one document and called it
in Latin, “Corpus Disciplinae,” and in Dutch, “Kerckenordeninghe.”
The Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586, called the document, “The Church
Order of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands” (Kerckenorden-
inghe der Nederlandtsche Gereformeerde Kercken). This, altho in
simplified modem spelling, is still the official name of this body of
church rules today. (Kerkenordening van de Gereformeerde Kerken
in Nederland).

Note the plural “Kerken” in the name of this Church Order. This
name, as just indicated, dates back to the post-Reformation era. This
plural form of the word Church in this title, is therefore not the in-
vention of the Doleantie leaders, Kuyper, Rutgers, and others, as
some have thought; but it is found in the original name, altho the
name was not used in toto for more than two and one-half centuries.

Realizing the foregoing may also help us to understand that the
word “church” in “Church Order” is an adjective. It merely tells us
that the document is an ecclesiastical order; not a political or a social
order, for instance. That is, it is not a set of rules for a political
organization nor for a social organization. The singular “church” in
the name “Church Order” therefore does not indicate that we look
upon our denomination as one large super-Church. The full name of
our Church Order in its original languages, Latin and Dutch, clearly
indicates that our denomination is a federation of local Churches hold-
ing a common confession and form of church government, firmly
united by the confessional standards and Church Order adopted. The
Christian Reformed Church is therefore not a body or union of indi-
viduals, but a union or federation of Churches, each one of which is
a complete manifestation of the body of Christ. It may be said in
this connection that if the Synod of 1914 had adopted the title “Church
Order of the Christian Reformed Churches” in harmony with the his-
toric name of our Church Order, this would have helped to ward off
misunderstanding on this score.

One of the characteristics of our Church Order is its brevity. There
are only 86 articles and these are in most instances very brief. Our
fathers purposely steered in the direction of brevity. They believed
that the best interests of the Churches and the cause of God would
be served by a limited number of rules. They feared “rule upon rule
and precept upon precept.” They felt that multiple and detailed rules
would bind the Churches needlessly. They loved their liberties, and
believed that each Church group (Classis) or Church should retain as
much of its inherent freedom as the true welfare of the Church of
Christ would warrant. In this respect a different course has been
pursued by many Reformed and Presbyterian Churches which have a
large number of rules and regulations, going into great detail.

We are convinced that the brevity of our Church Order is one of
its merits. More than once, for instance, numberless detailed and in-
volved rules have been used by modernistic majorities at church as-

PREFACE

semblies, against loyal minorities. Rules needlessly detailed always
have a tendency to impede and hinder free action and development.

As to its nature, the Church order is a body of rules for the mainte-
nance of good order in the Churches. As such the Church Order should
not be confused with synodical or with classical decisions. The Church
Order and ecclesiastical decisions by no means stand on par. A Church
Order is a group of ecclesiastical rules, mutually adopted, and bind-
ing for all the Churches having so adopted these rules, i.e., for all
the Churches of the denomination concerned; whereas ecclesiastical
decisions are merely distinct applications of one or more of the gen-
eral and basic rules of the Church Order.

The authority of the Church Order is based upon the Biblical de-
mand of subjection to duly appointed authorities. Children are in-
structed to obey their parents. (Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20.) Romans 13 defi-
nitely enjoins obedience to lawful state authorities. Thus Holy Writ
likewise attributes authority to office-bearers in the Church. “Jesus
therefore said to them again, Peace be unto you; as the Father hath
sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed
on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit; whose soever
sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them ; whose soever sins ye re-
tain, they are retained.” (John 20:21-23.) Acts 15:27-29 also very
clearly reflects ecclesiastical authority, for we read in this passage:
“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no
greater burden than these necessary things.” Judas and Silas are
delegated to convey the decision of the Jerusalem Assembly by letter
and word of mouth to the various Churches. Furthermore, Heb. 13:17
bids us, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them:
for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account;
that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this were un-
profitable for you.”

Ecclesiastical authority as exercised by the Churches, however,
does not bind the conscience as is claimed by the Roman Church and
by some of the Protestant Churches. The Word of God, however, does
bind the conscience. And whenever the Church clearly reflects the
Word of God, the decisions of the Church should also bind the con-
science. But whether or not ecclesiastical rules repeat and apply the
clear dictates of God’s Word — judgment on this question must, in the
last analysis, be left to every individual believer. Rules and decisions
are binding and compelling only for those that are and remain under
the authority of the Church. He who feels in conscience bound before
God to refuse submission is free to do so. But such a believer cannot
consistently remain under the authority of the Churches in question.
That would make for disorder and confusion as well as for spiritual
damage.

That church government is of very great import to the Church of
Christ goes without saying. True, purity in doctrine, and therefore
confessional purity, ranks first. But no Church being pure and true
confessionally, will continue to be such except the Word of God is
purely preached, and the sacraments are administered according to
the Word of God. A Church that is not governed according to the
Word of God cannot remain true to the Word of God. Impurity in
church government fosters impurity in church doctrine. Form and
content stand closely related also in this instant.

From what precedes it follows that the Church Order should not
be considered to be a legalistic document, a book of laws in the civil
sense. The Church Order consists of rules and regulations mutually
agreed upon, and that by common consent, (cf. Art. 86.) It does not

PREFACE

force and compel after the fashion of a civil law. It is not superim-
posed upon the Churches, demanding unreasoned and legalistic obedi-
ence. The Church Order guides and directs, in order that all things
may be done “decently and in order,” for the furtherance of the
Church of Christ, even as the Bible enjoins. (I Cor. 14:40.) However,
as will appear from the pages following, the authors firmly believe
that every one of our Churches and every member of our Churches is
in duty bound to respect the authority of the Church Order, and to
show constant loyalty to its provisions.

As might be expected, we have sought to base the contents of this
book exclusively on Scriptural principles and historic facts.

Special mention should be made in this preface of the fact that the
authors owe much to the church governmental labors of Dr. F. L.
Rutgers, (1836-1917) one time professor in church polity at the Free
University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Not only have they often
consulted the published works of this authority, but the unpublished
class lectures on church government of Dr. Rutgers were also in their
possession. We would also gratefully acknowledge the work of Rev.
Joh. Jansen, a student of Dr. Rutgers, whose “Korte Verklaring van
.de Kerkenordening” has been of great help to us in the preparation
of this Commentary.

May the King of His Church abundantly bless our labors!

THE AUTHORS.

The Church Order Commentary

The CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ARTICLE I

For the maintenance of good order in the Church of Christ
it is necessary that there should be: offices, assemblies , super-
vision of doctrine, sacraments and ceremonies, and Christian
discipline ; of which matters the following articles treat in due
order.

PURPOSE AND MAIN CONTENT OP CHURCH ORDER
1. Concerning the purpose of the Church Order.

No Christian can observe and study life and the world in which we
live without seeing that God loves order. The seasons of the year,
our own bodies, and all things created tell us, in spite of the mars
and scars of sin, that the great Creator of all things is a God of order.
The Bible, God’s special revelation, tells us the same thing emphat-
ically.

Now God is ever true to Himself. Sublime harmony and order mark
His triune being. Consequently God can do nothing in a haphazard,
slipshod fashion. That would militate against His very essence. That
would be ruinous in its effect upon His creation.

For these reasons the Church at Corinth is also admonished: “But
let all things be done decently and in order.” (I Cor. 14:40.) And it
is for the maintenance of good order in the Church of Christ, and for
the promotion of its true welfare, that “offices, assemblies, supervision
of doctrine, sacraments and ceremonies, and Christian discipline,” have
been instituted. For these same reasons our fathers of Reformation
days accepted a limited set of rules regulating these several matters.
These rules comprise our Church Order.

By maintaining well organized Churches with their, “offices, assem-
blies, etc.” we vary definitely from certain mystical, inner-light groups
who neglect all these important matters and even stand opposed to
them. Our fathers definitely disagreed with the Anabaptists of the
sixteenth centur^ on this score, and felt persuaded by Holy Writ to
sponsor well organized Churches.

At the same time it should be remembered that it is not the purpose
of the Church Order to force the Churches to walk its beaten path
with arbitrary, fettering and chafing compulsion. The Church Order
means to be regulatory. It means to regulate ecclesiastical life rea-
sonably and with full maintenance of the rights of every congregation
and of the individual members of the Churches. The Church Order
is moral in character, not judicial. It is a regulatory set of rules,
not a legalistic set of laws.

Regarding the expression “Church of Christ” in Article 1, it should
be remarked that the Church Order sometimes speaks of “Church” in
the singular (Kerk). Now the word “Church” in the Church Order
always refers to a local congregation viewed as a definite organization.
The plural, “Churches”, (Kerken) refers to a number of organized
congregations. Usually it refers to all the Churches belonging to the
denomination. The expression “Church of Christ”, (Gemeente van
Christus) is used to indicate the body of believers living in a certain
region or country. It designates the body of Christ from its non-or-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ganizational aspect, and as scattered in various localities. And finally,
the name “congregation” (de gemeente) is used to designate a definite
group of believers living in one communion and organized into one
particular church, altho the term “congregation” in the Church Order
also refers to the Church from its non-organizational aspect.1 Con-
cisely the matter stands thus as to Church Order usage:

Kerk — Church — Organized or instituted Church.

Kerken — Churches — Denomination, or, Federation of organized
Churches.

Gemeente van Christus — Church of Christ — Sum-total of believers
living in various localities.

De gemeente — the congregation — definite group of believers liv-
ing in one locality.

It is evident therefore that Article 1 thinks of the believers as
found in various localities when it speaks of the Church of Christ,
and more specifically of the believers belonging to our Christian Re-
formed denomination.

The Church Order considered from the aspect of its purpose may
be said to fill a real necessity. To be sure a Church can exist without
a Church Order but it cannot flourish and thrive properly without it.
Furthermore, denominational harmony and co-operation require a
definite set of rules, inasmuch as all co-operation requires an expressed
basis. Besides, the Church Order is a constant guardian against wil-
fulness and abuse of power, which evils are ever ready to creep in
to disturb the peace and progress of the Church.

2. Concerning the main content of the Church Order.

Article 1 declares that for the maintenance of good order in the
Church of Christ it is necessary that there should be: offices; assem-
blies; supervision of doctrine, sacraments and ceremonies; and Chris-
tian discipline. The things here enumerated constitute the subject
matter of the Church Order. Every article of the Church Order deals
with matters which may be listed under one of the four heads indi-
cated.

Concerning the first head, the offices, (Articles 2-28) it is note-
worthy that the Dutch text speaks of “diensten”, which as the Latin
“functiones” in the original text, stresses the element of service to
be rendered, rather than authority to be exercised. The word “minis-
trations” or “services” would be more exact translations for “dien-
sten” than the present “offices.” But there are objections to the sug-
gested word also. “Ministrations” is rather cumbersome, and “serv-
ices” is too vague and has too many other meanings in the English
language. The term “offices” is wholly satisfactory, just so we bear
in mind that the primary emphasis in this case falls on the element of
service; altho the element of authority should not be ignored.

The Bible clearly stresses this element of service for office-bearers.
II Cor. 8:4 speaks of “the fellowship in the ministering to the saints.”
Eph. 4:11,12 tell us that God gave the various offices “for the per-
fecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building
up of the body of Christ.”

Ecclesiastical offices are not merely beneficial to the Church of
Christ, but they should be termed indispensable, inasmuch as they
were instituted of God. Were not the Apostles sent forth by Christ,
vested with His authority? (Matt. 28:18-20; John 20:21; II Cor. 5:
18-21). And does not the Bible offer abundant evidence for the con-

1. Cf. Jansen: Xorte Verklaring* van. de Xerkenordening-, 1923, pp. 3, 4.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

tention that the offices in the Church, both special and regular offices,
are ordained of God? I Cor. 12:28 tells us that “God hath set some
in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, . . . Rom. 10:15
asks, “And how shall they preach, except they be sent?” In I Thess.
5:12 the apostle says, “But we beseech you, brethren to know them
that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord . . . Confer
also Eph. 4:11-13; II Tim. 2:2; Titus 1:5.

Furthermore, subjection to such as minister as office-bearers is also
urged in Matt. 10:40; “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he
that receiveth me receiveth Him that sent me.”; and in Heb. 13:17,
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them.”

Secondly Article 1 mentions the assemblies. (Articles 29-52). Al-
most needless to say, the Church Order does not refer in this article
to the “assembling together” (Heb. 10:25) of the believers on the
Lord’s Day for worship. Article 1, when speaking of assemblies has
reference to ecclesiastical assemblies, i. e., consistory meetings, classi-
cal meetings and synodical meetings, (cf. Art. 29).

These assemblies have been instituted and these gatherings are be-
ing held for the purpose of governing the Church or Churches aright;
to assist each other in difficult cases; to help each other in the mainte-
nance of doctrinal purity; to maintain the offices ordained of God, and
to promote order and congregational worship.

Next, supervision of doctrine, sacraments and ceremonies, are men-
tioned. (Articles 53-70.) Supervision of doctrine is very necessary in-
asmuch as purity of doctrine is to the Church of Christ what a good
foundation is to a building. Without purity of doctrine the Church of
Christ fails and falls, (cf. Acts 28:28-31; Gal. 1:8, 9; II John 10.)

Supervision regarding the sacraments is necessary because these
are the signs of God’s saving- grace in Christ, and the sealing ordin-
ances of His covenant to His people. Abuse and corruption regarding
the sacraments is a very serious matter. Indeed, desecration of the
sacraments merits the wrath of God over His congregation, (cf. I Cor.
11:17-34.)

The ceremonies mentioned in Article 1 include the installation of
office-bearer, the solemnization of marriage before the Church of God,
and other ecclesiastical solemnities. “Let all things be done decently
and in order.” (I Cor. 14:40) also pertains to these solemnities of con-
gregational worship.

Finally, this first article mentions Christian discipline. Christian
discipline concerns first of all the profession and conduct of all church
members. Secondly it concerns in a special way the profession and
conduct of office-bearers in their capacity as office-bearers. Discipline
as it pertains to church members as such, consists of admonition and
ultimately, if need be, of excommunication. Discipline regarding office-
bearers in their capacity as office-bearers consists of admonition, and
furthermore, if need be, of suspension and deposition. The right and
the duty of the Churches to exercise discipline cannot be questioned by
anyone who acknowledges the Bible as God’s own Word. Matt. 16:19,

“I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven ”

Matt. 18:17, “. . . If he refuses to hear the church also, let him be
unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.” Titus 3:10, “A factious
man after a first and second admonition refuse.” (cf. also John 20:23;
Rom. 16:17; I Cor. 5:3-5; II Thess. 3:6,14, etc.)

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ARTICLE II.

The offices cure of four kinds: of the Ministers of the Word ,
of the t Professors of Theology , of the Elders , and of the Deacons .

THE OFFICES

1. Ecclesiastic offices three in number.

All ecclesiastical offices find their origin in Christ, the Church’s
only Head and Supreme Ruler. No office-bearer in the Church has
any authority in himself. All the authority which any ecclesiastical
office-bearers possess is delegated authority, authority given to them
by Christ and to be exercised by them for Christ. Christ is the
Church’s chief Prophet, only High Priest, and Eternal King. (Hei-
delberg Catechism Q.31.) Consequently, the offices as they have
been ordained for the organized Church here on earth are nothing
but extensions and continuations of Christ’s three-fold office. Again,
back of all authority, also all ecclesiastical authority, standeth God,
the Triune, absolutely sovereign God. Through the second person
of the Trinity, Christ Jesus, He governs and blesses His church. Our
fall into sin is three-fold. We fell as prophets, priests, and kings. We
lost true knowledge, holiness, and righteousness. As rational think-
ing creatures we lost true knowledge and fell from our prophetic
office; we became prophets of falsehood, of the devil’s lie. As moral
creatures (capable of choice, desire, and devotion) we lost true holi-
ness; i. e., love and consecration to God, and we fell from our priestly
office; we became" priests unto Satan and sin. As executive creatures
(capable of rationally and morally conditional activity) we lost true
righteousness, and fell from our royal office; we became kings of un-
righteousness. We repeat therefore, our fall into sin was three-fold,
in keeping with man’s essential being as God’s image-bearer. Conse-
quently, we must be saved in a three-fold sense, and restored in a
three-fold sense, i. e., as prophets, priests, and kings. From the fore-
going it follows that the Saviour also holds a three-fold office. He
is the second Adam and as such the Prophet, Priest, and King of His
Church.

For this reason the Old Testament knew three primary offices;
no more, no less: Prophets, Priests, and Kings. They were represen-
tatives of the Christ to come. For this same reason the New Testa-
ment period has three primary offices; no more, no less: Ministers,
Deacons, and Elders, representing Christ respectively as Prophet,
Priest, and King of His Church.

It should not be forgotten, however, that particularly during the
transitional period of the Church of Christ on earth, for some time
after Christ’s ascension to Heaven, the three-fold office of Christ did
not stand out clearly. Various temporary offices and circumstances
somewhat obscured the facts set forth above. But as the formative
period of the New Testament passes (and with it the special and in-
clusive apostolic office, the temporary prophetic offices, etc.) and con-
ditions assume a more permanent aspect, the three-fold office of Christ
in His Church also begins to stand out with greater clarity. The office
of the Ministry of the Word is spoken of or alluded to in II Cor.
5:18-19; Eph. 4:11,12; I Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:9; Heb. 13:7. The office
of the diaconate or deaconship finds Scriptural expression especially
in Acts 6:1-7; Phil. 1:1; I Tim. 3:8-12. Of the office of the eldership
we read especially in Acts 14:23; Rom. 12:8; Eph. 4:11-13: I Thess
5:12; I Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9; Heb. 13:17-24.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

2. Why Article 2 mentions four kinds of offices.

But if there is Scriptural warrant for but three permanent New
Testament offices, why then does our Church Order mention four?
There is a historical explanation for this fact. In Eph. 4:11 we read:
“And He gave some to be apostles and some prophets; and some evan-
gelists; and some pastors and teachers.” Now the offices of apostles,
prophets, and evangelists, it is generally agreed, were temporary of-
fices which God did not mean to continue, and which passed away
when the Churches were fully established. As to the latter expression
of Eph. 4:11, “and some pastors and teachers,” some of the Reformers
believed that it referred to two distinct offices in the New Testament
Church, namely that of the Ministers of the Word, and that of the
Teachers of Theology. Calvin himself gave this interpretation of
Eph. 4:11. (Cf. Calvin’s Commentary on Ephesians.)

As a result of this interpretation the Church Order, already in its
first redaction gave four permanent New Testament offices. Today it
is generally realized that the expression “and some, pastors and
teachers,” of Eph. 4:11, refers to the single offices of the Ministry of
the Word. If this were not the case, then in keeping with the whole
passage the expression should and would read as follows: “and some
pastors; and some, teachers;” note the difference in punctuation and
its significance. It is true that the Bible clearly speaks of the duties
of teachers of Theology (cf. f . i. II Tim. 2:2) but this task is but a
specialized duty of the Gospel ministry. Professors of Theology as
far as our Churches are concerned, are Ministers of the Gospel. (Cf.
Form for the Installation of Professors of Theology.)

The separate mention of Professors of Theology in Article 2 is con-
fusing, and rests upon a misunderstanding of former years. In fact,
the original expression used in Latin was “Doctor,” which simply
means teacher or instructor. And this term “Doctor” was applied to
all teachers of religion also in State universities, though these teach-
ers held no ecclesiastical office whatsoever. Do not forget in this
connection that there was a very close bond of union between the
Government and the Churches in these early days. Our fathers sought
the sponsorship and special, if not exclusive, favor of the Govern-
ment. And the Government often insisted on a definite measure of
control over the Churches. It is not unlikely that this situation,
which time and a further removal from Rome would correct, influ-
enced our fathers to view matters on this score as they did.

It is agreed by many that it would have been far better if in 1914
we had simply rendered Article 2 as follows: “The offices are of three
kinds: of the Ministers of the Word, of the Elders, and of the Dea-
cons.” Now our redaction of 1914 still reads: “De diensten zijn vier-
derlei: der Dienaren des Woords, der Doctoren, der Ouderlingen, en
der Diakenen.” And in our English translation of 1920 we have con-
veniently substituted, “Professors of Theology,” for the expression,
“der Doctoren.”

The Reformed Churches of Holland have to this day also retained
the old redaction on this point. The Rev. Joh. Jansen, one of Hol-
land’s outstanding authorities in Church Order matters, contributes
this fact to ecclesiastical conservatism in the evil sense of the word.

Almost needless to say, the fact that the actual offices in the
Church of Christ are limited to the three indicated, does not mean
that there is no room for various assistants. The Levites, for instance,
were assistants to the Priests. Their work and authority belonged to
the primary office of the priesthood. I Cor. 12:28 speaks specifically
of “helps.” Paul refers to assistants and helpers repeatedly. Student

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

exhorters, Catechism teachers not holding office, organists, Sunday
School teachers, Sick visitors, Gospel workers, Finance Committees,
Collection, Building and Ground Committees, Ushers, Janitors, etc., all
these (when they are appointed and controlled by the consistories)
may be considered to be “helps.” They all fill a useful and necessary
place in our churches.

ARTICLE III

No one, though he be a Professor of Theology, Elder or
Deacon, shall be permitted to enter upon the Ministry of the
Word and the Sacraments without having been lawfully called
thereunto. And when anyone acts contrary thereto, and after
being frequently admonished does not desist, the Classis shall
judge whether he is to be declared a schismatic or is to be pun-
ished in some other way.

NO MINISTRY OF WORD AND SACRAMENTS
WITHOUT A LAWFUL CALL

1. What is the historical background of Article 3?

One of the many problems that the Churches of the Reformation
period had to cope with was that of self-appointed preachers. Church
life during the first few decades was not at all well ordered. It could
not be. It was a period of new beginnings and of persecution. Many
of the Ministers of that early day were former priests. Others were
men without special theological training, though having in other re-
spects more than ordinary ability. Some of those who aspired to the
Ministry simply started to preach wherever they could get a hearing.
Many of these men refused to submit to an examination and did not
care to place themselves under the supervision of any Consistory.
Men of questionable character and purposes, by eloquent and fair
speech would create a following for themselves, to the disruption of
Churches and ultimate spiritual damage to many. Very often they
would travel from place to place. Our fathers had more than one
designation for this class of self-seeking, self-appointed, religious
freebooters, whose sensational methods often attracted many. They
were called “tramps,” “intruders,” and “schismatics” (loopers, in-
dringers, scheurmakers.)

As early as 1563 the Churches of Flanders decided: “That none shall
be permitted to administer the Word of God without a lawful call,
and such as boldly intrude themselves shall be punished.” The Wese-
lian Convention, 1568, decided that none should be admitted to the
Ministry “without lawful calling, election, approbation, proper exami-
nation and observance of that lawful order.” Subsequent Synods,
Embden, 1571; Dordrecht, 1574; Dordrecht, 1578, took additional ac-
tion against these wilful, self-seeking, office-less men. The Synod of
Middelburg, 1581, gave us Article 3 of our Church Order as it now
reads.

2. Who alone may administer the Word and Sacraments
in our Churches?

Article 3 provides that none “shall be permitted to enter upon the
Ministry of the Word and of the Sacraments without having been
called thereunto.” The Church Order stipulates in Article 4 that a

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

lawful call includes election, examination, approbation, and ordina-
tion. Of these we shall speak in due order. Just now we consider not
the call to the Ministry and its elements, but rather the ground upon
which Article 3 rests. These grounds are Biblical, beyond doubt.

The Old Testament office-bearers were called and charged of God.
The Apostles were called directly by Christ. False prophets and false
apostles had no calling and charge of God. (cf. Jer. 23:21, 32; John
5:43.) Those who were called and sent of God came upon His author-
ity. (cf. Isaiah 6:8; Jer. 1:1; Rom. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; etc.) The Apostles
and their helpers were called “Ministers of Christ,” Col. 1:7; “servants
of Christ,” II Cor. 5:20. And because the Apostles and their helpers
did not come upon their own authority, nor upon the authority of
men, but solely upon God’s authority, the Churches had to obey them
and respect them. “Obey them that have the rule over you, and sub-
mit to them.” Heb. 13:17a; “Esteem them exceeding highly in love for
their work’s sake.” I Thess. 5:13.

Clearly, the Bible stresses divine appointment for the Prophets and
Apostles. But this is likewise true for those that were to succeed
them. They also are sent of God and called of the Holy Spirit. “Pray
ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send forth laborers into
his harvest.” Matt. 9:38; “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the
flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the
Church of the Lord which He purchased with His own blood.” Acts
20:28. (cf. also I Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11, etc.) To preach, one must
be sent. “And how shall they preach, except they be sent?” Rom.
10:15. No man may assume this task upon his own authority. “And
no man taketh the honor unto himself, but when he is called of God,
even as was Aaron.” Heb. 5:4.

What would we think of a man who without an election, would
nevertheless insist on doing the work of an Elder or of a Deacon?

Dr. H. Bavinck is thoroughly Biblical when he maintains that all
believers have a calling to preach or to witness, but that only those
who have a definite charge of God may do so with authority and in
the name of the Lord, preaching the Gospel as a savor of life unto
life, and as a savor of death unto death, i (cf. Isaiah 43:10, 12; Luke
10:16; Acts 8:4; II Cor. 2:14-17.)

This special call to the ministry and its charge is no longer given
in direct and extraordinary fashion, as in the case of the Apostles.
In their day the Church of Christ was in its infancy and conditions
were extraordinary. When extraordinary circumstances cease to exist,
God uses ordinary means. These ordinary means pertaining to the
calling to the ministry include the internal and the external call.

What do we mean by the internal call? The internal call may be
designated as a personal conviction of heart on the part of a brother
in Christ that God would have him become a Minister of the Gospel.
Dr. H. Bouwman, in his Gereformeerd Kerkrecht, enumerates and
describes five elements essential to the internal call to the ministry.1 2
Briefly stated, they are:

1. A persistent love for the gospel ministry, a strong desire to
serve God and His Kingdom in the ministry, bom of prayerful medi-
tation.

2. A certain amount of ability. He who aspires to the ministry
must not only have the necessary strength of body and character, but

1. H. Bavinck: Oereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1918, IV, pp. 410-415.

2. H. Bouwman: Gereformeerd Kerkrecht, 1928, Vol. I, pp. 368-70.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

also certain indispensable talents, as for instance, pertaining to mind
and speech.

3. Readiness to deny oneself utterly; readiness to serve the Lord
wherever and however He may appoint.

4. Unselfish aims; a desire to see God glorified and His Kingdom
extended. None should desire the ministry merely as a profession and
as a livelihood.

5. An open road; the ways and means essential for the necessary
preparation will be provided by God in His providence, if one is truly
called of Him. If one feels called to the ministry but finds that the
road leading to the ministry is providentially closed, all his prayers
notwithstanding, then he may be sure that he is not actually called
of God.

But the internal call must always receive its ratification of God
through the external call. One may “feel” that he is called of God,
but one’s feelings are not infallible. One may be well prepared and
well qualified as far as man can judge, and yet not be called of God.
How can one know that his feelings and desires are actually tokens
of a call of God? Of this he may rest assured if, in addition to what
he sincerely believes, and feels in his heart to be a divine call to the
ministry, God also calls him through the instrumentality of one of
His Churches. This we term the external call.

That God calls His servants to the ministry of the Word and of
the Sacraments, under normal New Testament conditions, through
the Church, is beyond doubt. When an Apostle was needed to fill the
vacancy created by Judas Iscariot, we read: “And they (the believers,
the Church) put forward two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was sur-
named Justus, and Matthias.” Acts 1:23. And concerning Titus we
read: “Who was also appointed of the churches to travel with us in
the matter of this grace.” II Cor. 8:19. No one may ignore this ec-
clesiastical appointment and just assume the ministry unto himself.

3. Why professors of theology, Elders and Deacons are specifically
excluded from the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments.

Elders and Deacons receive special mention iin Article 3 for no
other reason than that some Elders and Deacons assumed unto them-
selves the duties and privileges of the ministry. Elders represent
Christ as King. It is their specific duty and privilege to rule. Deacons
represent Christ as Priest. It is their specific duty and privilege to
show mercy. Ministers represent Christ as Prophet. It is their spe-
cific duty and privilege to make known the will of God; to speak
His Word. And although it is true that Ministers as we know them,
are at the same time Elders, and therefore help to rule the Church
over and above their duty and privilege to instruct the people, yet it
is not time that Elders have the right of the ministry of the Word
and the Sacraments, (cf. I Tim 5:17, and the Form for the Ordina-
tion of Elders and Deacons.)

Regarding professors of theology, it should be recalled that years
ago many men were professors of theology at state universities, who
had never been ordained to the regular ministry. Some of these were
tempted to preach nevertheless. Yet our fathers realized that such
should not be done. No one, unless he has received a charge from
God can act as His representative or as His messenger to His people.
A man may be a doctor of law and have excellent qualifications to

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

serve as judge, but unless he is appointed to serve as judge, he has no
authority to act the part of a judge in our courts. Unordained in-
truders may not be admitted to our pulpits, but neither may unor-
dained professors of theology. The founders of the Reformed
Churches certainly held the office and divine appointment to office
in very high esteem.

Inasmuch as our present theological professors are all ordained
men, this article does not affect them. But they are permitted to
preach by virtue of the fact that they are Ministers, and not because
they are professors of theology. Our Form for the Installation of
Professors of Theology even presupposes that all who are appointed
as professors of theology are ordained men. It speaks of the brother
to be installed as being “a brother in the holy ministry.” On the
other hand, Synod of 1930 decided: “The nominees (for professors of
theology) shall preferably be ordained men that have had some ex-
perience in the Ministry of the Word.” (Acts, Synod 1930, Art. 23.)

4. What is to be done when anyone administers the Word or the-
Sacraments without due ordination?

Anyone transgressing the good rule shall be admonished concerning
the error of his way. By whom? By his consistory of course. For all
discipline concerning church members in their non-office-bearing ca-
pacity, originates and centers in the local Churches. If the guilty one
persists, Classis must judge whether he is to be declared a schismatic
(one who creates factions or divisions in Churches) or whether he
shall be punished in some other way.' The first three Synods (1571,
1574, 1578) left no choice. He who persisted should be declared to
other Classes to be schismatic. This implied, as it does today, that
such an one should be disciplined as a schismatic. For he who is
guilty of tearing apart the Church of God is unworthy of the Lord’s
Table, except he repent, (cf. Form for the Administration of the
Lord’s Supper.) The Synod of 1581 made milder treatment possible.
It added the concluding phrase to Article 3: “. ... or is to be pun-
ished in some other way^’ This clause permits for instance, mere
admonition, without the giving of publicity of the transgressor’s ir-
regularity as a warning measure to all the Churches.

What is to be done when an unordained individual, not a member
of one of bur Churches, is permitted to preach the Word from any
of our pulpits? Or what is to be done if a Minister of another de-
nomination, concerning whose soundness there is a well-founded
doubt, is admitted to one of our pulpits? In such cases it becomes
the duty of Classis to warn its Churches and to admonish the guilty
consistory. If this should not help, more drastic action would be in
order.

Needless to say, cases of this kind often require a great deal of
consideration, instruction, and patience, inasmuch as many church
members are not clear on the issues at stake and the dangers in-
volved. And many “intruders” seem to be very sincere and effective.
Swayed by eloquence and emotionalism, and in the midst of contro-
versy, very few people can judge objectively and soberly.

Nevertheless, let it also be said, that violations on this point also
require determined opposition. Laxity on this score would ultimately
open our pulpits to errors of all kinds.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ARTICLE IV

The lawful calling, of those who have not been previously in
office, consists :

First, in the ELECTION by the Consistory, and the Deacons,
after preceding prayers, with due observance of the regulations
established by the Consistory for this purpose, and of the
ecclesiastical ordinance, that only those can for the first time
be called to the Ministry of the Word who have been declared
eligible by the Churches, according to the rule in this matter;
and furthermore with the advice of Classis or of the counselor
appointed for this purpose by the Classis;

Secondly, in the EXAMINATION both of doctrine and life
which shall be conducted by the Classis, to which the call must
be submitted for approval, and which shall take place in the
presence of three Delegates of Synod from the nearest Classes:

Thirdly, in the APPROBATION by the members of the
calling church, when, the name of the Minister having been
announced for two successive Sundays, no lawful objection
arises; which approbation, however, 1 is not required in case the
election takes place with the co-operation of the congregation
by choosing out of a nomination previously made.

Finally, in the public ORDINATION in the presence of the
congregation, which shall take place with appropriate stipula-
tions and interrogations, admonitions and prayers and impo-
sition of hands by the officiating. Minister (and by other Minis-
ters who are present) agreeably to the Form for that purpose.

CALLING TO THE MINISTRY OF THE WORD
AND SACRAMENTS

1. The Election.

a. Election takes place “after preceding prayers.”

In Church Order redactions of the sixteenth century this phrase
reads: “after preceding fastings and prayers.” The task of securing
a worthy Minister of the Gospel was much more difficult in former
years than it is now. At first there was not a class or group of men
known as candidates for the ministry. Our candidates must be well
prepared and well qualified spiritually and only then are they declared
candidates. In former days the Churches as a rule, had to find their
own way. “Indringers” (intruders) and “loopers” (migratory, self-
appointed preachers) were numerous. And then as now, people were
apt to be swayed by some unworthy but eloquent stranger. And so the
calling of a Minister was a very serious and difficult task. After mat-
ters were arranged so that unworthy persons could no longer creep in
without much difficulty, days of fasting for this special purpose be-
came less necessary. Finally, fasting in connection with the calling
of a minister fell completely into disuse. Under these changed con-
ditions the Synod of Utrecht, 1905 (Netherlands) and likewise our
own Synod of 1914 altered the phrase in question so that we now
have merely, “after preceding prayers.” It is worthy of note that
provisions for fasting were never made regarding the election of
Elders and Deacons. Neither when it concerned the calling of a Min-
ister already ordained and having served some other Church. Doubt-
less, the fact that the custom of fasting was abandoned for all other
occasions, also helped to make this present provision obsolete. (We

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

are not now answering the question whether or not this discontinu-
ance of fasting in our Churches can be fully justified.)

Prom the foregoing it may also be inferred that it was the original
intent of this article that the congregation should come together for
a special prayer service before the work of securing a Minister was
undertaken, particularly when a choice was to be made from brethren
who had not previously served as Ministers. We now, as a rule, in-
terpret it to mean that no election shall take place unless the meeting
has been opened with prayer. If the Church Order meant no more
the expression would be rather superfluous. Who would think of con-
ducting a congregational gathering without due prayers? Should we
not go back to the old custom? Is not the calling of a Minister
amply worthy of a special prayer service? However, in this connec-
tion let us also remember that conditions have changed. Today much
prayerful labor is being performed before applicants are declared
candidates. When Article 4 was first written the Churches did not
declare xpen to be candidates for the Ministry. They had to choose
more or less at random from men whom they thought fit for the min-
istry. At any rate, upon ‘the Sunday before the work of calling a
Minister begins in Consistory, the sermon should be appropriate and
the congregational prayers specific.

b. Election “by the Consistory and the Deacons.”

Properly the Elders of a Church constitute its Consistory and the
Deacons its Diaconate. The Elders represent Christ as the King of
His Church. The Deacons represent Christ as the Priest of His
Church. The Consistory rules the Church in the name of Christ. The
Diaconate shows mercy in the name of Christ. Now the Church Order
stipulates that in small Churches the Deacons may, and in certain
cases must be added to the Consistory, (cf. Art. 37). In all such cases
Elders are really Assistant-Deacons, and Deacons Assistant-Elders.
They partake of each other’s office in a very distinct fashion. In all
Churches in which Article 37 is operating, the Elders and Deacons,
(and the Ministers inasmuch as Ministers are members of the Consis-
tory, in their capacity as Elders) naturally work together in nomi-
nating and electing men to the ministerial office.

But Article 4 stipulates that also in Churches where the normal
situation obtains, i.e. where the two offices function each in their own
sphere, that also in these Churches the Elders and the Deacons shall
meet together whenever a brother is to be elected to the ministry.
Why ? It is the position of the Church Order that the duty of election
to office (Minister, Deacon, Elder), does not belong to any one of the
offices in particular, but to all the offices working in unison. Strictly
speaking of course, appointment to office in the Church belongs to
Christ only. Normally He designates through the Church and appoints
through the offices. (For a fuller consideration of the matter of ap-
pointment to office through all three offices of the Church, see our
discussion of Article 22.)

The Church Order neither here nor elsewhere prescribed direct ap-
pointment through the congregation. So-called “free elections” in
Churches already organized, are contrary to our adopted rules. The
Churches of the Reformation period ruled against these “free elec-
tions” for more than one reason. In the first place many were very
ignorant in those early days. Large numbers of those who left the
Roman Church, in the wake of the majority, lacked consecration and
conviction. Others, feeling the sway of Independentism or Congrega-
tionalism— today we might speak of Undenominationalism — were too

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

revolutionary. Then there was also the danger that men, not to be
desired for the work of the ministry but with pleasing personalities
and eloquent speech, might be elected, if the whole matter rested with
the congregation.

But Bouwman judges: “Although Article 4 of the Church Order does
not mean to limit the congregation in any of its rights, the formulation
of this article does not give full expression to the prerogatives of the
congregation.”1 And Jansen suggests that a future redaction of the
Church Order of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands should
incorporate the phrase: “with the co-operation of the congregation”
in Article 4,2 We agree with him. Article 4 of our redaction would
likewise be more complete if it read: “. . . . election by the Consistory
and the Deacons, with the co-operation of the congregation. . . .” For
to be sure, co-operation on the part of the congregation is in full har-
mony with Reformed Church polity. In the Church of Rome office-
bearers appoint new office-bearers without consulting the congrega-
tion. The original Lutherans permitted the Government to elect its
office-bearers. According to the Independent or Congregational sys-
tems, the congregation must appoint directly. But according to the
Presbyterian or Reformed system Christ elects His office-bearers, by
vote of the Church under the guidance and supervision of the office-
bearers previously appointed. And this is doubtlessly Scriptural. For
the Bible attributes a guiding control over elections and power of
appointment to the office-bearers. Acts 6:3: “Look ye out therefore,
brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit
and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business*” Acts 14:23:
“And when they had appointed for them elders in every church . . . .”
I Tim. 5:22: “Lay hands hastily on no man. . .” Titus 1:5: “For this
cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things
that are wanting, and appoint elders in every city as I gave thee
charge.” However it should never be forgotten that the duty of con-
trol and guidance, and the power of appointment which Consistories
exercise, have come to them through the Churches. Christ authorizes
in the first place His Church, and secondly, and in a derived sense the
Consistories. The truth of this contention becomes plain when we re-
member that when congregations are organized, the body of believers
appoints office-bearers directly. If this were no inherent right of the
congregation, this could never be done.

But the Bible also exemplifies congregational co-operation. Ac-
cording to Acts 1:23 a group of one hundred twenty believers co-
operated with the Apostles in the nomination of two men, one of
whom was to be appointed Apostle in the place of Judas Iscariot. And
before the Apostles appointed the first seven Deacons (Acts 6:1-6) the
congregation chose them. And in II Cor. 8:19 Paul speaks of an
Evangelist or Helper, “who was appointed by the Churches to travel
with us in the matter of this grace. . .”

Consistories should therefore work for congregational co-oper-
ation, also in making nominations for the ministerial office. It is well
to give all members an opportunity to commit themselves. Names of
brethren which anyone desires to see nominated can be presented in
writing to the Consistory and upon invitation of the Consistory prior
to the making of nominations. If ever a large portion of a Church
desires to see a brother nominated, but the Consistory judges that he
should not be nominated, the Consistory may find it advisable and

1. Bouwman: G-ereformeerd Xerkrecht, 1928, I, p. 385.

2. Jansen: Xorfce Verklaring van de Xerkenordeningr, 1923, p. 17.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

necessary to explain its stand. In cases of serious conflict and differ-
ences of opinion, and as a measure of last resort, the major assem-
blies (Classis, in this case) may be consulted. This step, needless to
say, should seldom be necessary.

The question whether or not women should take part in congrega-
tional elections we would answer negatively. Voetius, the great ex-
pert in Reformed Church government, excludes women from Church
elections inasmuch as congregational elections are Church govern-
mental in character. 1 2 And women, according to Holy Writ, are not
to teach in the Churches nor to help govern the same. (I Cor. 14:34.)
Bouwman judges likewise.2 So does Jansen.3 Those who have not
yet made confession of faith have no right to vote inasmuch as they
are, ecclesiastically speaking, minors. Members being disciplined
have no right to vote inasmuch as censure implies that all rights of
Church membership are held in abeyance, rendered non-active, tempo-
rarily at least.

c- Regulations adopted by Consistories for election
of Ministers, to be observed.

The Church Order presupposes, here in Article 4, and again in the
article governing the election of Elders and Deacons, that each Con-
sistory has a set of rules according to which elections shall be con-
ducted. Whenever the congregation is called together for the purpose
of electing office-bearers, partiality and arbitrariness should be out
of the question. To avoid these evils, a set of rules consistently fol-
lowed, is very desirable.

Then again, certain questions should not merely be left to usage
and custom. For instance: Proper announcement of nominations
should be made prior to every election; elections should take place
by ballot; a majority vote should elect; etc. These and like rules are
not found in the Church Order. They should be incorporated in a
short set of rules governing election. Furthermore, problems are apt
to present themselves at any meeting. For example: In case more
brethren receive a majority vote than the number of vacancies to be
filled, what is to be done? When two candidates for one office receive
an equal number of votes, what should be the procedure? Questions
such as these cannot be decided by the congregation inasmuch as the
Consistory is the ruling body and not the congregational gathering.
Moreover, for the Consistory to decide on such problems at the time
when they present themselves might open the door to partiality or
at least to the semblance of partiality. Permanent rules should gov-
ern such cases.

d. Only those declared eligible by the Churches may be called.

The original Church Order (Dort 1618-19) did not contain the pro-
vision now under consideration. A “praeparatoir” examination, i.e., a
preparatory examination was unknown. The Churches could call
whomsoever they saw fit. However, preliminary examination soon
proved to be very necessary. Without proper guidance in this respect
many inferior and undesirable men entered the ministry. Later the
evil of Arminianism urged and compelled the Church to establish
greater safe-guards. The Synod of Dort 1578 already provided that
none should be called unless they had first been tried or examined, so
that the Churches might receive greater assurance that only “be-

1. cf. Bouwman: Gereformeerd Xerkrecht, 1928, I, p. 386.

2. Idem.

3. Jansen: Xorte Verklaring' van Xerkenordening, 1923, p. 18.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

quaeme personen” (qualified persons) should be called. Various Pro-
vincial Synods, before and after the great Synod of Dort referred to
above, made like decisions. But it found no expression in the general
Church Order of Dort. The Secession Churches of Holland (1834)
instituted a preliminary examination conducted by the curators of its
Theological School. Successful applicants were declared Candidates
by these curators. After the union with the Doleantie Churches
(1892) this preliminary examination and right of declaring men
Candidates was returned to the various Classes. Then in 1905 the
Synod of Utrecht included the following provision in Article 4 of the
Church Order: “Met onderhouding .... van de kerkelijke ordinantie
dat alleen diegenen voor het eerst tot den dienst des Woords kunnen
beroepen worden, die door de Classe, waarin zij wonen, praeparatoir
geexamineerd zijn.” This provision stipulates that a preliminary ex-
amination must be taken by men who desire to enter the ministry,
which examination is to be conducted by the Classes in which they
reside, and which body also declares successful applicant Candidates.

In our own Christian Reformed Churches the curators have up to
the year 1937 examined and declared men Candidates.

(Our body of curators are now known by the more common designa-
tion: Board of Trustees.) However Synod of 1937 decided that begin-
ning with the year 1938, Synod itself will examine and declare men
Candidates for the ministry, instead of doing so through a board of
trustees. This decision was taken upon the following two grounds:

“1. The best interest of our Church requires that whatsoever our Church
assemblies can reasonably do directly should not be delegated to commit-
tees, particularly not when it concerns very important Church work.

2. Under the present system (Board of Trustees of Calvin College and
Seminary declaring Candidates) our Eldership has no part in this very es-
sential work. If Synod would do this work itself, this undesirable situ-
ation would be rectified." (Acts 1937, Art. 53)

The Synod of 1939 declared that the synodical examination is pre-
paratory in character and deals with the following matters: 1. Dog-
matics; 2. Practices; 3. Specimen sermon, (cf. Acts, 1939, p. 74.)

e. Election not to take place without advice of Classis
or Counselor.

Article 4 also provides that no election to the ministry shall take
place without advice of Classis. Why this ruling ? No Christian Re-
formed Church stands by itself. There is a very close bond between
the various Churches. He who receives the right to administer the
Word and Sacraments in one Church, is thereby given authority to
do the same in all other Christian Reformed Churches, upon re-
quest of the Consistories concerned, of course. Furthermore, the
Minister will be constantly delegated to the major assemblies, and
he will thus help to govern other Christian Reformed Churches, par-
ticularly those of his own Classis. He also becomes eligible to the
ministry in any other local Church in the denomination without re-
examination by a Classis. For these reasons, the Classis, and through
the Classis, all the Churches, have been given a certain measure of
control in this important matter. However this provision is first of
all meant to be a safe-guard for the Church calling. A whole Classis
is sometimes in better position to judge concerning the desirability of
a contemplated call than the one calling Church by itself. The phrase
“or of the counselor appointed for this purpose by the Classis,” was
added for practical reasons. A Classis meets in regular session only
intermittently and in regions where distances are great only twice a

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

year. A Church in need of a Minister usually desires to call forth-
with, rather than wait for Classes to meet. For a Church to wait with
the calling of a Minister for a Classical gathering would mean a
vacancy of many years in many instances, inasmuch as Churches are
often compelled to call several times before securing a Minister.
Moreover, the counselor as representative of Classis must assist the
vacant Church with his help and advice regarding the work of calling
a Minister whenever necessary. He is expected to do what Classis
would do directly if it were in session, namely advise the Consistory
as to a prospective Minister. He is also expected to be present if cir-
cumstances permit, at the election, in order that he preside at the
meeting for the congregation, and he must sign the letter of call,
to assure the brother elected that all things have proceeded according
to ecclesiastical rules and that the call in so far is valid and carries
Classical approval.

Strictly speaking, the work of a counselor requires that the Con-
sistories of vacant calling Churches consult him before nominating
men for the vacancy. This, however, is very seldom done. The coun-
selor is usually asked for his approval after the nomination (usually
a trio) has been made. And counselors almost uniformly approve of
nominations without offering advice, inasmuch as advice is not asked.
Sometimes this procedure is doubtlessly harmful. Good advice asked
for and given at the proper time and place would be a real boon to
many a vacant Church. But on the other hand, Consistories which
do not need advice should not be made to feel that they must ask
for advice. The liberty of each Church should be unhampered as far
as denominational unity and agreement permit.

In practice the counselor does a great deal more than the Church
Order really indicates. He often installs Elders and Deacons, admin-
isters the Sacraments, conducts funerals, etc. There is nothing
against this, although no Church should feel that it is obliged to call
on its counselor for all these matters. And no counselor should ever
feel that the Church concerned is in duty bound to call on him for
all these labors.

Often vacant Churches when they wish to call a Minister will re-
quest “hand-opening” which is usually termed “permission to call.”
This is unnecessary. Every Church has an inherent right to call a
Minister, and should do so if at all possible. “Hand-opening” is an
old Dutch term. Years ago, when the government of Holland had
gained possession of Church properties and paid or helped to pay the
salary of Ministers, Classes would ask “hand-opening” for certain
Churches which desired to call. What then was the significance of
all this? Simply that Classis was requesting the Government to
promise to pay the salary of a Minister, which a certain Church de-
sired to call. The Church concerned would receive as it were, per-
mission to extend its open hand to the Government for a donation
toward the Minister’s salary. They who received “hand-opening”
were thtfs placed in position to call. But all this is a thing of the
past, and so the whole custom should be shelved.

This does not mean that Churches may not and should not ask their
sister Churches for advice in regard to the desirability of calling a
Minister. Circumstances may make this very desirable. Furthermore,
a Church which finds itself unable to pay an adequate salary, will
have to ask assistance from her sister Churches, and cannot well pro-
ceed with calling a Minister without advice from Classis. But no
Church is in duty bound to ask “permission to call.” It should not
be done as it tends to obscure the fact that each local Church has

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

the inherent right to call. At best a certain Church may find it nec-
essary to take counsel with the other Churches, or to ask a promise
of financial aid toward salaries to be paid. Rulings pertaining to
minimum salaries to be paid, find no support in the Church Order
either. A Classis must express itself and urge its Churches not to go
beneath a certain stipulated minimum, but no resolution of this kind
should be worded or interpreted in such a fashion that it exercises
compelling force. The matter of salaries to be paid is ultimately a
matter between the Church concerned and the Minister called. A
Minister of some means, for instance, should be at full liberty to
serve a Church for a very small salary, or no salary at all, if he so
desired. Almost needless to say, if a Classis finds that one of its
Churches is paying its Minister an insufficient salary, it may call the
attention of such a Church to its neglect of duty and urge instant
improvement, or if need be, help to improve the situation.

2. The Examination.

a. The “Pieremptoir” or Decisive Examination.

The examination to which Article 4 refers in its second section is
the decisive examination, the examination by which a brother is ad-
mitted to the ministry. The preliminary examination, which merely
admits men to the candidacy, has already been considered in the pre-
vious sections. The peremptoir or decisive examination has been in
use ever since the federal unity of Reformed Churches of Holland
first began to function. At their very first general assembly, the
Weselian Convention, 1568, it was instituted. Successive Synods
maintained it. The praeparatoir or preliminary examination was
added at a latter day, (1686, Synod of Den Haag; 1688, Synod of
South Holland) to provide Churches, desiring to call such as had not
previously served, with much needed guidance and safe-guards.

b. Subject matter of Decisive Examinations.

The decisive examination which admits to the ministry concerns
itself with doctrine and practice, faith and conduct. Thus it was
stipulated from the beginning. The subject matter for these classical
examinations was regulated anew by our Synod of 1939. Regarding
the nature of Classical examinations and the subject matter of these
examinations, this Synod adopted the following:

“That the Classical examination is decisive, and deal with the fol-
lowing matters:

1. Dogmatics (including knowledge of Standards and Controvers) ;

2. Practica;

3. Specimen sermon;

4. Knowledge of the Scriptures;

5. Church History;

6. Church Polity;

7. Ethics.” (Acts, 1939, P. 74.)

For a differentiation between the synodical examination and the
Classical examination, i.e., between the preparatory or preliminary
examination and the decisive and final examination, confer the report
on “Synodical and Classical Examination^”, Agenda, Synod 1939,
Part I or a short excerpt of this report, Acts, Synod 1939, pages 250-2.

As will be understood, this report as such has no official standing.
But Synod of 1939 did accept the conclusions of this report as quoted
above. And Synod was motivated, we may believe, by the material

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

contained in this report. Candidates as well as examiners will there-
fore do wise to take note of this report.

Concerning the sermon to be delivered at the time of the classical
examination Synod of 1920 decided that the candidate should preach
for the congregation in whose midst the Classis is being held, and
that the classical delegates should attend this special congregational
service. Synod of 1934 made this matter optional. Each Classis now
arranges this matter as it judges best. The specimen sermon may be
delivered before the entertaining Church, usually on the evening be-
fore the actual examination, or the specimen sermon may be delivered
before the Classis at one of its regular sessions.

The present authors much prefer the former method. It is fairer
to the candidate for it gives him a “rear’ audience and more time.
And the Classical delegates can judge far better as to the candidate's
ability on the pulpit.

c. By whom the decisive examination is td be conducted.

According to the inherent rights of every local Church, it would
be up to the Consistory of the calling Church to take the final ex-
aminations of admittance, after a Candidate had accepted the call
extended to him. But denominational unity requires approbation of
the call by the Classis. Consequently, for very good and practical
reasons, Hiis examination has been assigned to the Classes. First of
all, because Consistories as a rule are not qualified to conduct this
examination as it should be done, nor are they always able to evalu-
ate an examination aright. Consequently, the Classis lends its assist-
ance. Secondly, this examination has been assigned to the Classes,
inasmuch as the Classis is asked to approve of a call extended, and
therefore in the matter of calling definitely exercises its right and
duty of supervision. And furthermore, the decisive examination ad-
mits not only to the administration of the Word and the Sacraments
in the one Church calling, but to all the Churches of the denomina-
tion, by dint of federal agreement.

It is even added that this examination “shall take place in the pres-
ence of three Delegates of Synod from the nearest Classes.” This
provision was included as an additional safeguard. In days of laxity
and error sometimes a whole territory or Classes is more or less weak
and unsound. Representative delegates from other Classes in such
instances might prove to be a real blessing. Moreover, as noted above,
the decisive examination of admittance is valid for all the Churches
of the whole denomination. Consequently, so the conclusions ran, all
the Churches should be represented, at least by a few able men.

In cases of differences of opinion between a Classis and the Sy-
nodical Delegates, mutual deliberations are in order. If these fail to
remove the differences of opinion, the whole question of admittance
or non-admittance goes to Synod.

The Synodical Delegates have no decisive votes. They serve the
Classis with their advice, as a body, after the examination. As a
matter of custom the Classes do extend the opportunity to these Dele-
gates to question the Candidate.

d. Who are to be examined?

Article 4 replies in its opening clause: “those who have not been
previously in office.” In other words, those who are not as yet Min-
isters. The examination is not required of Ministers who, already
serving one of our Churches, have accepted a call to another Church
in another Classis. Because of denominational unity one Church or

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

group of Churches fully acknowledges the examination conducted by
another Church or group of Churches. Just as we honor each other’s
certificates of membership, so do we honor each other’s examinations
for the Ministry. However, in days of error or neglect, a certain
Classis might require an additional statement or examination from
all incoming Ministers. But only then should such a step be taken
when there are just grounds to believe that the letters of testimony
of incoming Ministers are no longer reliable and true to fact. Thus
the Classis of„Walcheren, Nov. 5, 1693, decreed that all incoming Min-
isters would have to sign the “Walcherse Artikelen,” articles con-
demning certain prevalent errors of that day.

3. The Approbation.

The New Testament teaches us clearly that the early Churches co-
operated in the appointment of men to office, though it is Christ who
actually appoints and ordains to office. Consequently, our Church Or-
der provides that the congregation be recognized in the important
matter of elections. And no Consistory or major assembly may ig-
nore the voice of the Church, or arbitrarily set aside just complaints.
For direct congregational participation in the work of elections again
consult Acts 6:3-5. The multitude, at the request of the Apostles
looked out for seven men of good report from among their own num-
ber, whom the Apostles then proceeded to ordain as Deacons. Again,
II Cor. 8i49 speaks of an evangelist who had been appointed “by the
churches to travel” with Paul. And in II Cor. 8:25 the Apostle calls
his helpers, “messengers of the Churches.”

How may this approbation of the congregation spoken of in Article
4 be secured? First, the Consistory may announce to the congrega-
tion whom it intends to call, by which announcement the Consistory
submits its choice for the approval of the whole Church. Those who
might have valid objections should be invited to come to the next
Consistory meeting to state their objections. If lawful or valid ob-
jections are registered with the Consistory, and if these are of such
a nature that they cannot be removed, the contemplated call will be
withheld. If no valid objections are registered, the Consistory can
proceed with the call.

But the present article also permits a second possibility. The Con-
sistory may nominate two or three or four men (as many as it sees
fit) and then call together the congregation in order that the body of
believers may elect one of the nominees. This latter method of ap-
probation, as is well known, is now in general use in our Churches.
Of the two, it is under all normal circumstances to be preferred, as
it gives the congregation a very definite voice in the matter. Election
by the congregation manifestly implies approbation, and therefore
according to Article 4, approbation “is not required in case the elec-
tion takes place with the co-operation of the congregation by choos-
ing out of a nomination previously made.” It should not be forgot-
ten, however, that the nomination must be announced to the congre-
gation for its approval. If anyone in the Church concerned has
lawful objections against one or more of the nominees, he should re-
port at a Consistory meeting, which meeting should always be held
before the election takes place, in order that members may have op-
portunity to register objections. Some Consistories meet a few
minutes before the congregational meeting at which the election is
to take place. This cannot be called a very appropriate time for such
a meeting, for what opportunity would a Consistory have to investi-
gate charges or objections?

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

When a Candidate has been elected should his name be announced
to the congregation for approval? Not before the call is actually
sent by the Consistory, for the elected brother has the preliminary
approval of the congregation by virtue of the procedure followed
regarding his election. But if he accepts the call, then this fact is
announced to the Church, stating that he will be installed as Minister
unless valid objections should prevent. The “Form of Ordination of
the Ministers of God’s Word” clearly implies this final approbation
by the whole congregation The opening sentence of this form reads
as follows: “Beloved brethren, it is known unto you, that we have,
at three different times, published the name of our brother N., here
present, to learn whether any person has aught to offer concerning
his doctrine and life, why he might not be ordained to the Ministry
of the Word.”

Article 4 provides that announcement to the congregation, when the
first possible method of calling a Minister is followed, shall take place
“for two successive Sundays.” Our Dutch redaction of which this is
a translation has “de naam des Dienaars den tijd van veertien dagen
in de Kerk afgekondigd zijnde, . . . .” Which is: “the name of the
Minister having been announced to the Church for the period of two
weeks.” The original intent is therefore that the name or the names
be announced at the services of the congregation for a period of two
weeks. At the end of this two weeks’ period the Consistory meets
to receive possible objections. Very often a nomination is announced
on two successive Sundays, the congregational meeting being held on
the following Monday. This gives the congregation little more than
one week for consideration and investigation and the Consistory no
time at all prior to the election. Of course, the Consistory could call
the meeting and election off at the last minute if necessary. But this
surely would be unpleasant and disturbing. It would be far better,
to avoid possible difficulties, to follow the original reading and intent
of the Church Order. In harmony with this reading and intent the
Form of Ordination even speaks of three announcements, referring
to three announcements made on three successive Sundays, as all
will grant.

Inasmuch as the office-bearers issue the call, may a Consistory over-
rule the choice of a congregation ? No. If the second method of
calling a Minister, provided for in this Article, is followed, then the
Consistory is duty bound to send the call to the brother elected by
the Church. The congregational vote is binding, it is not merely ad-
visory. The voice of the congregation is a constituent element in the
whole process of calling and may not be side-tracked. If the Con-
sistory had valid objections against any of the nominees, their names
should have been removed from the nomination, and should never
have been submitted to the choice of the Church. Only if the Con-
sistory should hear of very serious well-founded objections, after the
election, jyould she be permitted to withhold the call. In such a case,
the Consistory, if at all possible, should seek the approval of the
congregation.

4. The Ordination.

a. Significance of the ordination.

The ordination may be described as the solemn acceptance of the
ministerial office on the part of the Minister-elect, and the public
uniting of the Minister-elect to the calling congregation. The essence

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

of the call to the ministry, however, is to he sought in the election;
not in the public acceptance of, and dedication to the office.

Under special circumstances men have entered upon their office
without ordination or installation. During the Reformation era, per-
secution sometimes made public ordination or installation impossible.
Then this public ceremony was simply omitted by our fathers. The
great authority on Reformed Church polity of Holland, Gysbertus
Voetius, was never formally installed as Minister of Heusden, due to
government interference. However, when circumstances are normal,
ordination or installation may not be omitted. One simnly is not
considered to be a Minister of a certain Church unless he has been
duly installed. We do not look upon ordination or installation as a
Sacrament as does the Roman Church. According to Reformed
Church polity it is a ceremony through which a Minister-elect openly
accepts his office in the presence of the whole congregation, and by
which he is also openly, publicly inducted into his sacred office. All
this is to take place, so this article provides, “with appropriate stipu-
lation and interrogations, admonitions, and prayers and imposition of
hands by the officiating Ministers (and by other Ministers who are
present) agreeable to the Form for that purpose.”

As the concluding phrase indicates, these matters have been regu-
lated and provided for in our Form of Ordination of the Ministers of
God’s Word, found on appended page 99-102 of the Psalter Hymnal.

Years ago the matter of imposition or laying on of hands was not
prescribed. It was left to the judgment of each local Church. Many
of the Reformation Churches in Holland were opposed to the practice.
In the Roman Church it was regarded as essential. By the imposition
of hands, so this Church holds, brethren already ordained impart cer-
tain necessary gifts needed for the office. Now our fathers feared
this error. But the Synod of 1581 ruled that those who were being
installed in the ministerial office for the first time, should be ordained
by imposition of hands. Five years later this ruling was permanently
established. (Synod 1586.) By this time the people had learned to
distinguish sufficiently between the wrong and the right conception
of this solemn act.

What then is the significance of this solemnity? Dr. Bouwman,
substantiating his position by a reference to Dr. Bavinck’s teachings,
gives us in effect the following circumscription: “The laying on of
hands is therefore a symbolic act whereby it is signified that the
brother concerned has received the necessary gifts of office (through
the Holy Spirit) and that these gifts are now dedicated to the service
of the Church.” And further: “It is a solemn, public declaration on
God’s part, before the congregation, that the elected brother is law-
fully called of God Himself, and is to be regarded by the congrega-
tion as His servant; whereas the office-bearer himself is urged by
this solemn exercise, to develop the gifts allotted to him, and to use
them for the glory of God, and the welfare of the congregation/’1 11

All Ministers present at the solemn occasion, according to Article
4, should lay their hands on him who is being ordained. Why? In
order to signify that they all, as special servants of God and in His
name do testify alike that God has granted the special gifts of the
Holy Spirit for the work of the ministry to the brother concerned,
that he now dedicates these gifts for office to the ministry of the
Word and to the Church calling him, and that the congregation is to

1. cf. Bouwman: Gereformeerd Xerkreckt, 1928, I, 410, and Bavinck:

Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 1918, IV, 418.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

receive him as such; and furthermore that all Ministers by this
solemn act may urge the brother to apply himself wholly to his
glorious work.

Of course, as all symbols, so also this symbol of the imposition of
hands is meaningless in itself. He on whom we lay hands must be
sincere m his heart and really called of God, if the symbol is to mean
anything to him and to the Church. And both he and the Church must
understand this beautiful symbol in order to appreciate it.

ARTICLE V

Ministers already in the Ministry of the Word , who are called
to another congregation, shall likeunse be called in the afore-
said manner by the Consistory and the Deacons , unth observ-
ance of the regulations made for the purpose by the Consistory
and of the general ecclesiastical ordinances for the eligibility
of those who have served outside of the Christian Reformed
Church and for the repeated calling of the same Minister during
the same vacancy; further , with the advice of the Classis or
of the Counselor, appointed by the Classis, and with the ap-
proval of the Classis or of the Delegates appointed by the
Classis, to whom the Ministers called show good ecclesiastical
testimonials of doctrine and life, unth the approval of the mem-
bers of the calling congregation, as stated in Article U; where-
upon the Minister called shall be installed with appropriate
stipulations and prayers agreeably to the Form for this purpose.

THE CALLING OF THOSE ALREADY IN THE MINISTRY

Article 4 and Article 5 are very much alike. They cover much the
same territory and we shall therefore avoid much needless repetition.
It will be noted that the matter of examination and the item concern-
ing the imposition of hands provided for in Article 4 are omitted in
Article 5. The examination conducted by one Classis is acknowledged
by all the others, and therefore in the case of Ministers already in
service, letters of testimony take the place of the examination of ad-
mission. And the ceremony of the imposition of hands is omitted
when a Minister is installed in a new charge, inasmuch as this solem-
nity is for life, and should therefore not be repeated.

1. The Calling of a Minister to another Congregation.

When one is called and ordained as a Minister of a certain con-
gregation, he is called and ordained for an unlimited period, or if
you will, for life. This, however, does not mean that the tie between
a Minister and a Church cannot be broken. Various circumstances,
such as unfaithfulness in doctrine or life, may terminate the ministry
of a Minister in and to a certain Church* Moreover, as the present
Article specifies, the tie can also be severed by the acceptance of a
call to another congregation. But no Church should call a Minister,
united as a servant of God, to another congregation of Christ, rashly.
And without weighty reasons no Minister should seek to break the
tie, providentially existing between himself and his Church. Circum-
stances or conditions often enumerated and which may be of sufficient
weight for a Minister to seek release from the Church he is serving

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

in order to accept a call to another Church, are the following: When
a younger Minister receives a call to a larger or more responsible
field; when an older Minister receives a call to a smaller and less
strenuous field; when a Minister of average or ordinary ability, after
several years of labor in his present Church, receives a call to another
field; when constant conflict between a Minister and other consistory
members hampers the work of the ministry; when past trouble has
left a restricting atmosphere in a congregation; when the salary paid
a Minister of a certain Church does not meet the needs of his family,
and improvement cannot be made.

Life is full of sin and its results. The evil one does not hesitate to
enter the sacred domains of Christ’s Church here on earth to exert
his baneful influence. Therefore we should not be surprised that evils
easily attach themselves to the important work of filling a ministerial
vacancy. Some of the evils to be avoided are these: Underhanded,
perhaps insincere solicitations of a call; prodding a Minister for some
favorable remark about the church building, parsonage, etc.; promis-
ing to call without due warrant; calling without due consideration of
the suitableness of the Minister; seeking merely a good public
speaker, ignoring far more essential qualifications.

In certain denominations the practice of soliciting a call is con-
sidered proper. The Presbyterians, for instance, speak of “candidat-
ing.” Both Candidates and Ministers already serving a certain
Church will apply for the ministerial office of a vacant Church, if
they so desire.

Amongst us this is not done. Any solicitation of a call would be
condemned most severely. Candidates sometimes write to vacant
Churches seeking to preach for such Churches one or more Sundays.
The same is true for Ministers without a charge but ready to con-
sider a call. (For instance Ministers who were compelled to become
emeriti because of impaired health, but sufficiently restored to resume
the regular duties of the ministry.) But outright applications for calls
are unknown among us. The Reformed Churches have always held
that the Church is a very special institution among men, and that its
offices are therefore also very special. God calls to office, though
through the Church, and none should solicit for its offices, as we do
for ordinary secular positions. The Church and its offices should never
be put on par with ordinary organizations. In Heb. 5:4 the Word of
God tells us: “And no man taketh the honor unto himself, but when
he is called of God, even as was Aaron.” Some have quoted I Tim.
3:1 in defense of the practice of “candidatin^” or soliciting. This
passage reads as follows: “Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh
the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” But here the inner
desire of the heart should be stressed. The passage does not speak
of soliciting for office. One certainly may desire the holy office. One
may hold himself in readiness and may prepare himself for service
by diligent study of God’s Word and the work of an office-bearer.
One may certainly bring the matter in prayer before God. But the
call must come freely, and in the providence of God, unsolicited.

The practice of solicitation of calls opens the door to a host of
evils. If a Minister finds that a change is highly necessary, for ex-
ample because of his health or that of a member of his family, or
for any other reason which he judges to be urgent, then let his Con-
sistory judge, and if the Consistory agrees, let this body seek the ad-
vice of Classis in order that the Classis, if it concurs, may announce
the brother’s predicament to all of our vacant Churches, either by
letter directly, or through the Church papers.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Needless to say, great care should be exercised in the filling of a
vacancy. There is a great variety of gifts and qualifications amongst
those called to the ministry. And there is also a great variety as to
the needs and conditions of the Churches. Not every cover fits every
dish equally well. Only those should be called to the pulpits of vacant
Churches of whom it may be expected that they somewhat fill the
needs peculiar to the Church concerned. How should Churches and
Consistories go about this all important work? In other words, how
can vacant Churches know whom they should call ? In many instances
they will know of a number of men who can all fill the needs of their
Church as well as may be expected in an imperfect world. In that
case the Consistory should not begin to look for extraordinary men.
So for instance, a Church might call a man of whom it knows next
to nothing, but concerning whom it hopes that he may be a power
of attraction as a pulpiteer.

If a Consistory is really at a loss, then what should it do? Let that
Consistory (by means of a competent committee) inquire from trust-
worthy, well qualified men, concerning gifts and abilities of men un-
der consideration. In cases of this kind the counselor certainly should
not be ignored. Furthermore, if possible, a committee of men well
qualified to judge sermons should listen to Ministers under considera-
tion, in their own Churches and report their impressions to the Con-
sistory. Should a Consistory invite men under consideration to preach
for their Church? As a rule, not. The Minister preaching under
these conditions cannot well be his natural self. He is bound to feel
that he is “on the spot.” He may well fall far below his natural self,
but he may also far exceed his normal self. Let it also be remem-
bered that a flashy, emotional speaker, who is really an inferior
preacher of the Word and perchance a careless shepherd, may cap-
tivate the majority of a congregation and thus secure a call, to the
exclusion of worthier and better qualified men. Moreover, the con-
gregation under these circumstances listens with a very critical ear,
detecting every flaw, failing to note the good and the excellent, per-
chance. The result may be that ultimately the choice of the Church
falls on a comparatively unknown man, whose faults are not known,
but who is actually inferior to those it has heard. And again neither
Minister nor congregation can well worship the Lord as He ought to
be worshipped at these “trial” services. The congregational services
are sacred and no practice should be permitted which tends to de-
grade their sacredness.

We would therefore recommend, objective, impartial investigation
and consideration of a Minister’s past record as expounder of the
Word, teacher, and shepherd. This will mean a great deal more than
one or two sermons preached on trial.

2. Which “general ecclesiastical ordinances” does this article
refer to?

First of all it refers to Synodical rulings regarding the eligibility
of Ministers not belonging to the Christian Reformed Church. The
latest ruling regarding this matter was made by the Synod of 1928,
and confirmed in 1934. Synod ruled, “that henceforth a nomination
of a Consistory containing the name or names of Minister (s) of an-
other denomination than the Christian Reformed Church, such nomi-
nations must have the approbation not only of the Classis or of the
counselor, but also of the nearest Delegates of Examination.” (cf.
Acts. 1928, Art. 132, and Acts. 1934, Art. 145.)

Those who are required to judge must assure themselves that the

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Minister or Ministers concerned are desirable because of their train-
ing, doctrinal position, piety, and character. And in case a Minister
from another denomination is called, and he accepts the call, then a
colloquium doctum is held with him before the Classis to which the
calling Church belongs. “Colloquium doctum” is a handy Latin phrase
which signifies, “a doctrinal conference or conversation.” A collo-
quium doctum is therefore not a classical examination. It is meant
to be an informal conference to assure the Classis that the brother
concerned is doctrinally sound and well-informed. At this conference
the Synodical Delegates for Examination are also present as repre-
sentatives of all the Churches.

As Churches we are not at all exclusive in the evil sense of the
word. We bid a hearty welcome to anyone who is whole-heartedly in
agreement with our position. But we are, as appears from the fore-
going, cautious. And rightly so. If we have good reasons for our
continual separate existence (and of this none who knows and appre-
ciates the facts aright can doubt), then it is no more than good sense
and clear duty to be very careful regarding the admittance of Min-
isters from other denominations. The more so when doctrinal laxity
and lack of distinctive. Biblical Christianity is becoming more popular
in many circles as the years go by.

There is another Synodical ruling which should be mentioned in
this connection. It refers to the calling of the same Ministers for the
same vacancy within a year. It reads as follows: “A second call to
the same Minister during the same vacancy may not be extended
within a year without the advice of Classis.” (Acts 1906, Art. 35.)
This is no doubt a good ruling.

When a Minister after prayerful, conscientious consideration has
declined a call, such a decision should be regarded as final, and ac-
cording to God’s will. To repeat the call in less than a year’s time
would be out of keeping with the solemnity of the whole situation.
Yet definite circumstances which compelled a Minister to decline a
call may alter suddenly, so that the Minister would be ready to accept
the call. If a Consistory hears of these altered circumstances and still
desires the brother, then the way should be open for the extension of
a second call. The Synodical ruling leaves room for this.

There are also other rulings which our Synods have adopted and
which should be mentioned here. Thus Synod of 1916 ruled that
“Consistories shall not nominate Ministers who have served their
present Church for less than two years, unless special weighty rea-
sons exist; and a counselor who approves of such a nominee must
give account of his reasons to Classis.” (Acts 1916, Art. 30.) Strictly
speaking, there is no time requirement. Any Minister, including the
theological professors at our seminary and other Ministers who have
been appointed to special positions, any Minister in good standing, is
eligible to a call. Theoretically everyone of our Ministers is eligible
to a call at all times, even when he has just been installed in a new
charge. This concerns the inherent right of every Church. But ex-
perience has taught us that it is good to have some general rule.
Therefore Synod of 1916 ruled as it did. This is a good rule. Thus
far all of our Consistories have taken due note of it. Generally speak-
ing, very short pastorates are not to the welfare of the Churches.
And yet there are exceptions. But the rule leaves ample room for
these exceptions.

Another Synodical ruling passed in 1884, states: “If a Minister
serves a Church only a year, and the moving expenses have exceeded
fifty dollars, the calling Church shall refund to the Church he leaves,

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

three-fourths of the^ expenses; if he serves only two years, one-half;
if three years, one-fourth of the moving expenses. This decision
shall be incorporated in the letter of call.” (Acts 1884, Art. 52; Acts
1890, Art. 63.)

Synod of 1926 decided that when a Minister leaves one Church for
another, his new Church becomes responsible for his salary from the
day that he preached his farewell sermon in the Church he left, un-
less other arrangements are made. This is no doubt a fair arrange-
ment. But it should not be necessary for a Synod to regulate all
these details. We should avoid rule upon rule, and precept upon
precept. Multiplicity of rules tends to exert an unwholesome ham-
pering effect on our ecclesiastical life. And Synod as a rule should
spend its valuable time considering major matters, matters touching
the maintenance and development of spiritual life and should cultivate
true appreciation for our Reformed principles.

3. Advice and approval of Classis.

The advice of Classis is prescribed in Article 5, just as in Article

4, and for the same reasons. (See our discussion under Art. 4, first
section.) Article 4, concerning itself with the calling and induction
into office of those who have not previously served, provides for
classical examinations. Article 5 regulating the calling of men al-
ready in the ministry, omits the provision for examinations, but pro-
vides for “the approval of the Classis or of the Delegates appointed
by the Classis.” This Classical approbation is here demanded for rea-
sons already considered. Who are the “Delegates appointed by the
Classis”? Whenever possible Classis should give or withhold its ap-
probation of a call accepted directly. Whatever the assemblies (Con-
sistories, Classes, Synods) can do themselves they should never dele-
gate to committees. To avoid abuse and assumption of power, that
is, to safeguard true presbyterianism and sound church government.
But sometimes a Minister accepts a call, just after Classis has met.
It would entail hardships if the calling Church would have to wait
for Classis to meet again. Therefore the Church Order permits ap-
probation by means of delegates. In every Classis so-called “Classical
Committees” have been charged to do this work. Classical committees
are standing committees, usually consisting of three Ministers, who
are charged to do certain labors, performed by Classis directly if in
session. Classical Committees with vague and general charges find
no support in our Church Order. It would be wiser and safer for
Classes to appointed committees as occasion requires. These com-
mittees should receive special, well defined instructions. At any
rate, every Classis should stipulate very clearly just what the duties
and powers of its classical committees are. But it is noteworthy that
originally Article 5 did not permit approbation of calls through a
committee. Even today the Church Order redaction of the Reformed
Churches of the Netherlands does not allow for approbation of calls
through committees. The Synod of 1905 of these Churches, assigned
this task to two neighboring Churches. These two neighboring
Churches notify all the other Churches of Classis that the question
of approving a certain call (accepted) will be decided upon at a cer-
tain place, day, and hour. All the Churches of the Classis are invited
to be present. As a rule of course, no objections are entertained and
the two Consistones merely aDprove of the call and the installation,
etc., for the whole Classis. It cannot be denied that our way of work-
ing is much simpler. But neither can it be denied that the method of

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

the Holland Churches is safer. Our fathers learned by experience
that hierarchical dominance easily creeps in through standing com-
mittees and so-called Church Boards. And it is evident that whenever
authority must be delegated it is more in harmony with Reformed
Church polity, to delegate such authority to minor assemblies, (Con-
sistories and Classes) than to boards or committees. And doubtless
usurpation of power and unwarranted influence is thus rendered less
probable.

Which documents must be present at a Classis which is asked to
approve a call accepted? Jansen enumerates five, namely these:

a. The letter of call, with the original letter of acceptance, so that
Classis may be sure that no undesirable or sinful restrictions have
been made.

b. A testimony from the Consistory of the Church which the Minister
has served declaring that said Consistory has agreed to the accep-
tance of the call, and has dismissed him as Minister. Without this
official release and dismissal no other Church may receive him. (cf.
Art. 10, Church Order.)

c. Membership j^rtificate regarding doctrine and life (cf. Art. 5, Church
Order) testifying that the departing Minister is sound in both doc-
trine and life.

d. Proof of regular dismissal from the Classis in which he served.
No Church being permitted to receive him unless he has been dis-
missed also by his Classis. (cf. Art. 10, Church Order.)

e. A testimony from the Consistory of the calling Church that the call
has been duly submitted for approbation to the whole congregation
(cf. Art. 5, Church Order) and that no valid objections have been
registered against the brother’s ordination. (If objections were
registered, but overruled by the Consistory the objector can of
course always appeal to Classis, and if he so desires to Synod. )1

4. The installation.

The Church of Rome does transfer its offices from one congregation
to another, but never re-installs them. The prerogatives and duties
of an ecclesiastical officer according to Rome, are indestructible. But
according to the Reformed conception the offices are all local in char-
acter. One is an Elder or Deacon of a local Church of a certain con-
gregation, never of Churches in general or of a whole denomination.
Hence also Ministers are called by and ordained by local Churches.
Consequently when a Minister assumes the ministerial office in an-
other congregation, re-installation is in order. Only the ceremony of
the imposition of hands, as we have noted previously, is not repeated.

ARTICLE VI

No Minister shall be at liberty to serve in institutions of
mercy or otherwise , unless he be “previously admitted in accord-
ance with the preceding articles, and he shall, no less than
others , be subject to the Church Order .

MINISTERS SERVING INSTITUTIONS OF MERCY, ETC.

1. The burden and intent of Article 6.

Article 6 provides that no Minister shall have the right to accept
an appointment as spiritual worker in an institution of mercy, or a
like institution, unless he has actually been called to this work, just

1. Jansen: Korte Verklaring van de Kerkenordening, 1923, p. 29.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

as a Minister is called to the Ministry of a congregation. In other
words, whether a Minister has an ordinary sphere of labor (Minister
of a local Church), or an extraordinary sphere of labor (such as spir-
itual worker in a hospital) he must be called as stipulated in Articles
4 and 5 of the Church Order.

It is implied in Article 6 that he who accepts an appointment to
do ministerial work in some Christian institution without a call ac-
cording to Articles 4 and 5 of the Church Order, thereby forfeits his
office. And no one can lay claim to the office of the ministry just be-
cause he does fninisterial work, unless he has first been lawfully
called and charged. Furthermore, it is specifically stipulated that
Ministers who have extraordinary charges and fields of labor must
submit themselves in all things to the Church Order. What holds for
regular Ministers holds for them as well. In this connection it is to
be noted that Synod of 1918 decided that: “Spiritual advisors for in-
stitutions shall be called by a neighboring Church in consultation with
the respective Board.” (cf. Acts 1918, Art. 37.)

A decade later the Synod ruled as follows: “Synod rules that the
status of a Minister, who labors officially in non-ecclesiastical insti-
tutions of charity is covered by Article 6 of the Church Order; that
all non-official work performed for such institutions, as for instance,
the collection of funds or solicitation of membership, whether the
Minister be in active service or retired, is covered by Article 12 of
the Church Order and is in conflict with “being bound to the service
of the Church for life,” and not in harmony with Article 13 nor Ar-
ticle 14.” (cf. Acts, 1928, Art. 37.)

2. General principles basic to Article 6.

In the first place, the Churches can recognize only one kind of Min-
isters of the Gospel. Not two kinds, one of which is charged and
called by the Churches, and the other appointed by some organization
or group of individuals. The Church can recognize only those as Min-
isters of the Gospel who have been lawfully called and charged by
the Church of Jesus Christ, and w’ho also live and work in agreement
with, and submission to the Church Order. All this for the simple
reason that the Bible knows only of one kind of Ministers; namely,
those who have been lawfully called to office.

Secondly, even as one cannot be an Elder or Deacon without being
Elder or Deacon of a particular local Church, so one cannot be a
Minister without being such of a particular local Church, though one’s
charge as a Minister may be very special.

3. Ecclesiastical position of Ministers serving as hospital
pastors, etc.

According to the present article, when an institution desires the
full-time services of one of our Ministers that institution should go
to a neighboring Church and ask the Consistory of that Church to
call a Minister for the work they have in mind. If the Church asked
is satisfied with the considerations and needs presented and the stipu-
lations promised, it can proceed with the calling. And this procedure,
should be more than a mere formality. The regular, most common
way would, of course, be that the Consistory nominate and that the
congregation elect. However, in most instances the management of
an institution might prefer to select a Minister. In that case the
Consistory, after due consideration, could approve of the institution’s
nominee and then announce to the congregation that the brother will
be called unless valid objections are registered with the Consistory.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Even the decision to call a Minister for the extraordinary duties in
question, should certainly be submitted to the congregation for its
approval. It is the Church that calls, though through those already
in office, and under their direction, and therefore the Church must
also decide to call. The Consistory can call a congregational meeting
for this matter, or in many instances it may be sufficient to announce
to the congregation that in answer to a request received, the Con-
sistory is minded to call an extra Minister to labor in the institution
indicated, and that all members who have any valid objections to the
proposed plan, are requested to report at the next Consistory meeting.

It should also be definitely understood that by requesting a Con-
sistory to place a Minister in their institution, the authorities con-
cerned are placing the work of the Minister under supervision of that
Church. This does not mean that the Consistory would arrange the
schedule of work to be done by the Minister, the hours, etc., for the
institution. Adequate stipulations regarding formal matters should
be made at the time when the agreement between the institution and
the calling Church is made, and the institution should certainly be
permitted at all times to manage its own affairs. But the Consistory
very definitely stands responsible for the character and nature of the
Minister’s work, and should exercise supervision.

Furthermore, a Minister who accepts a call as now under discus-
sion, should be considered a member of the calling Church and Con-
sistory, though his charge would be very special and different from
the charge of the regular congregational Minister. So, for instance,
a hospital pastor is rightfully a member of the Consistory which
called him. And as a member of the Consistory he should be allowed
his full rights. For example: It is his right and duty to preside at
Consistory meetings when his turn comes (Art. 17) and to go to
Classis, either as delegate or as advisory member (Art. 42). And as
far as his special task permits he is subject to Consistory work. For
Article 6 clearly provides that “no less than others” he shall be “sub-
ject to the Church Order.” In every case a definite understanding
should be reached at the time a special call, according to Article 6,
is about to be accepted. And, of course, every case should be con-
sidered and acted upon as circumstances require. We have simply
indicated what the Church Order stipulates regarding extraordinary
pastorates in general. But in writing up any agreement or schedule,
the Church Order should not be ignored and arbitrarily suspended.
Today we have a number of Ministers doing extraordinary ministerial
work who have no close contacts with any Consistory and cannot even
be delegated to our major assemblies. They form a class of Ministers
shorn of certain rights and duties which are definitely theirs. We are
convinced that this is contrary to the best interests of the Churches
and the Ministers concerned. To mention no more, the work of these
Ministers is not controlled as the work of other Ministers is.

4. Does this article also govern the ecclesiastical position of Ministers
who are teachers of Reformed doctrine or Bible history in our
high schools and colleges?

We believe that it does. Not that this matter was in the minds of
our fathers when this article was first framed. But inasmuch as the
teaching of the subjects referred to is very definitely ministerial work,
just as much so as the pastoral work of a hospital pastor, and as this
article plainly states: “No Minister shall be at liberty to serve in in-
stitutions of mercy or otherwise ”, and inasmuch as the intent

of the article is not to regulate the ecclesiastical position of one par-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ticular class of extraordinary Ministers, but rather the ecclesiastical
position of extraordinary Ministers in general, therefore we believe
that Article 6 should be applied to Ministers who act as Bible teachers.

ARTICLE VII

No one shall be called to the Ministry of the Word , without
his being stationed in a particular place , except he be sent to do
church extension work.

DEFINITE FIELDS OF LABOR.

1. The historical origin of this article.

Article 7 finds its origin in the fact that the Reformation Churches
had to guard themselves against certain self-appointed itinerant
preachers. Many of these refused to be connected ministerially with
any local Church. They wanted to travel from place to place as they
saw fit. They appealed the example of the Apostles and evangelists,
forgetting and ignoring the fact, that the Apostles and their helpers,
the evangelists, occupied a special temporary office being ordained
of God for the establishment of the New Testament Church; forget-
ting and ignoring also that Acts 13:1-4 tells us very definitely that
great men like Paul and Barnabas were sent forth by the Church of
Antioch. The Synod of Dort, 1574, ruled that preachers without fixed
charges should submit themselves to a Classis for examination.
Then if they received a call they could be properly installed to labor
in the Church calling them. And the Synod of 1578, (also Dort)
definitely declared itself against all itinerant preaching as in vogue
at that time. The Synod of Middelbuxg, 1581, decreed that none
should be permitted to go from place to place, having no fixed charge,
without the consent and authority of Synod or Classis. This Synod
therefore judged that itinerant preaching might be necessary and ad-
visable, but no one should decide this question for himself; not even
a local Church should act for and by itself, but Synod or Classi3
should judge whether or not work of this type is necessary. And the
Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586, decided that work of this kind should
be done amongst Churches which, due to persecution, had no Minis-
ters, and perhaps even lost their Consistories, and often lived in
“dispersion”, away from home. “Gemeenten onder het kruis,” they
were called, i.e. Cross-bearing Churches. Furthermore this Synod
specified that the work of gathering Churches in general required
traveling Ministers. Doubtless our fathers were thinking in this con-
nection of mission work amongst those still under the sway of Rome.

2. The significance of the Article.

The original of Artiqle 7 was written in 1581 by the Synod of Mid-
delburg. “No one shall be called to the Ministry of the Word, except
he be stationed in a Church which he shall serve.” Article 7 there-
fore clearly enunciates this principle that the call to the ministry
always implies a definite connection with the calling Church. The lo-
cal Church calls (Art. 4, 5) and that for labors within its own confines.

Article 7 thus placed the Churches in opposition, first of all, to the
Roman Church which ordains men in general, without uniting them
to a local Church. It also condemns the mode of procedure followed
by the Churches of the province of Friesland in former years. The
Friesian Churches ordained men at their Synodical or Classical gath-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

erings, without a call from a local Church. The fallacy of this pro-
cedure was clearly seen by the other Churches and the Friesian
Churches in due season conformed themselves to the true Reformed
principles regarding this matter. The offices in the Church are spe-
cific, not general. Recall that one cannot be an Elder or Deacon ex-
cept he be Elder or Deacon of a local Church. The same holds for
the ministerial office. Without the locally instituted or organized
Church the offices simply do not exist. Therefore Article 7 specifies
'“No one shall be called to the Ministry of the Word, without his
being stationed in a particular place.”

3. The exception.

But there is an exception. The assemblies at which our Church
Order was written felt that itinerant preachers, i.e., Ministers who
would devote all their time to home mission work or evangelization
work, might be very necessary. And so the clause “except he be sent
to gather Churches here and there” was added. This original reading
of the exceptive clause of Article 7 is somewhat broader than our
present reading. The present reading speaks only of Church exten-
sion work, which ordinarily refers only to “home missions;” i.e., the
organization of new Churches amongst those already believers and
in most instances members of some Christian Reformed Church, but
living in communities where no Church of ours is found. The original
reading of the clause makes it applicable to all types of mission work.
The present reading should therefore be allowed a broad interpreta-
tion.

Note well that the exceptive clause does not alter the fact that a
Minister is called by a Church, and not by Classis or Synod. The ex-
ceptive clause concerns itself only with the field or sphere of labor
of Missionary Ministers, not with their calling or ordination. The
calling and ordination to the ministry has been regulated in Article
4 and Article 5. What these articles contain stands. Article 7 does
not alter these matters in the least. It is well to note the significance
of the articles just preceding the present, in order to see the con-
nection and train of thought. Article 3 specifies that none shall be
permitted to preach unless he be lawfully called. (Even as no one
can go as ambassador from our United States to a foreign land un-
less he be lawfully called or appointed.) Articles 4 and 5 specify that
this calling to the ministry is exercised by the local Church, albeit
wfith the guidance of the Consistory. Article 6 adds that this one
and only mode of calling also holds for Ministers laboring in insti-
tutions of mercy, etc. And then Article 7 specifies still further that
a call to the ministry is always for a definite field of labor, except
when a Minister be called for mission work. Hence the exceptive
clause in Article 7 does not imply that Missionary Ministers can be
called and ordained and installed by Classes or Synods.

In this connection it may be well to warn against an erroneous ap-
proach to the Church Order. When you take a passage of God’s
Word and begin to explain it without any consideration for the rest
of the chapter, you are almost sure to make the Bible say what it
does not say. The Bible is a unit. When you explain a passage you
must do so in the light of the chapter and the book in which it is
found. In fact, nothing of what God has said may be ignored. Only
when a particular passage is explained in the light of the whole
Word can you exnect a correct interpretation. So it is to a certain
extent with our Church Order. The Church Order is a unit. It is not
a systematic presentation of Reformed Church polity, but is expres-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

sive of fundamental principles pertaining to Church government. And
these principles, fundamental to the various articles of the Church
Order, may not be ignored when you begin to interpret individual
articles. If you do, you will make the Church Order say what it
does not mean to say. And you will even make it contradict itself
again and again. The result will be mistaken notions and a sorry
confusion, and in practice you will consequently blunder again and
again.

From our interpretation of Article 7 it follows that we cannot
agree with our Synod of 1930, which held that the “calling and send-
ing, as also the regulation of the labors, of ordained Missionaries is
the task and the right of the Consistory, Classis, or Synod engaging
in that particular mission activity.” (Acts 1930, p. 143.) We see no
chance of substantiating this pronouncement with the Church Order.
We are convinced that Articles 4, 5, and 7 gainsay this deliverance.

Does this mean that more than one Church cannot co-operate in
calling and sending Missionaries? Not at all. Two or more Churches
may enter into close and definitely stipulated co-operation for the
selection and calling of a Missionary. But the provisions of Articles
4, 5, and 7 should not be brushed aside. One Church must always
be designated as the executer for all the rest. To this Church, the
brother called will stand officially responsible. And this Church also
will initiate disciplinary action in case the Missionary Minister should
become delinquent. When matters are arranged thus, in harmony
with the rules of our Church Order, confusion and irregularity will
be avoided.

So also a Classis cannot call and ordain, though it can carry on
mission work as a Classis. But one of the Churches must again be
appointed as executer for all the Churches of the Classis. And Synod
of 1936 certainly did the right thing when it provided in the new
home mission order, that although Synod (i.e., all the Churches of
our denomination) may select Missionaries, the actual work of elec-
tion, ordination or installation, shall be delegated to the local
Churches appointed for this purpose. With these local Churches the
Missionaries then stand in close and actual relationship as executers
for all the Churches concerned. This method of procedure is in har-
mony with our Church Order, and the basic principles of our Reformed
Church polity. In practice this method of procedure will work out
too. For instance, if a Classis or Synod would actually call and or-
dain, who could act with real responsibility and authority if an emer-
gency should arise while these assemblies are not in session?

ARTICLE VIII

Persons who have not pursued the regular course of study in
preparation for the Ministry of the Word, and have therefore
not been declared eligible according to Article U, shall not be
admitted to the Ministry unless there is assurance of their ex-
ceptional gifts, godliness, humility, modesty, common sense and
discretion, as also gifts of public address. When such persons
present themselves for the Ministry, the Classis (if the [ particu-
lar] Synod approve) shall first examine them, and further deal
with them as it shall deem edifying, according to the general
regulations of the Churches.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ADMITTANCE TO THE MINISTRY OF THOSE WHO LACK
SPECIAL PREPARATION.

1. Why is it the position of our Churches that its Ministers shall be
seminary graduates?

It is the rule of our Churches that only those who have prepared
themselves adequately by completing a satisfactory seminary course,
shall be admitted to its ministry. This rule is not embodied into a sep-
arate article but is implied in Article 8. Admittedly, a good training
at a good theological school does not necessarily make a good Minister.
There are certain qualifications for the sacred ministry which the best
theological school can never give. Such are those enumerated in this
article, namely: godliness, humility, modesty, common sense, and dis-
cretion. And even the gift of public address is not merely a matter of
training. True it is, that training may foster and greatly develop
these gifts of God, but in and by itself, a theological course will make
no one godly, humble, modest, etc.

It is this latter truth which our fathers realized full well. They did
not agree with certain mystical groups, such as Quakers, Dunkers,
Darbyites, and many Anabaptists, who taught that all scholastic train-
ing for the Ministry of the Word was unnecessary and even cumber-
some in many cases. Some said that the Holy Spirit did not need
scholastic learning for the accomplishment of His purposes. (Who of
us would care to deny this claim in the abstract? But is that the
point ? ) Others even said that learning was trash which hindered the
Spirit in His work.

But our fathers knew better. They realized that without the gifts
of God and the calling of God mere school training is vain. But they
also realized that a knowledge of the language which God used when
He gave the Holy Scriptures by inspiration, was, to say the least,
highly desirable. Furthermore, they knew that a thorough acquaint-
ance with the Sacred Scriptures, and a broad knowledge of human
history, ideals and tendencies, and a well disciplined intellect were all
requisites for good ministerial work. They were not unmindful of the
fact that Jesus virtually gave His disciples a three year training
course before He sent them out as Apostles. And that in the provi-
dence of God, Paul sat at the feet of Gamaliel, and had a very
thorough general training before God called him for his great task.

Neither did our forbears feel free to ignore Paul’s injunction to
Timothy: “And the things which thou hast heard from me among
many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be
able to teach others also.” (II Tim. 2:2.)

2. Why do our Churches have the ruling of Article 8?

When times are extraordinary for the Church of God, scarcity of
fully prepared Ministers is apt to occur. So, for example, at the time
of the Reformation there was a crying need for Ministers. Many con-
gregations were without regular Ministers year after year. In many
communities the Church remained unorganized for want of leadership.
Thus also when the Reformed Churches of Holland left the corrupted
State Church a half century ago, there was a great need for Minis-
ters. At such times the Churches should be at liberty to ordain of
their most worthy and able men, though they lack a thorough and
systematic training. For as we have noted, scholastic training for
the ministry is highly desirable, but not indispensable.

In the second place: In His sovereign good pleasure God sometimes

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

endows some of His children with extraordinary gifts and qualifica-
tions for the ministry, though they have not followed a prescribed
course and are therefore deficient in scholastic training. When God
qualifies a man for the ministry by endowing him with excellent and
extraordinary gifts for that office, then to be sure the Church of Christ
is m duty bound to recognize this fact with appreciation. The rule is
and should ever remain to be: Those that feel called to the ministry
must follow the prescribed course of study. But at the same time the
door must ever remain open for such as God graciously qualifies for
service without special training.

3. The exceptional gifts of Article 8.

Article 8 speaks of “exceptional gifts, godliness, humility, modesty,
common sense, and discretion.” The present redaction of the Church
Order of the Reformed Churches of Holland, corresponds to our read-
ing. However, the original Latin text of the Synod of Dort, 1618-19,
would require that we place a colon (:) after the expression “excep-
tional gifts.” The correct interpretation of this Article therefore re-
quires that we look upon the expression, “godliness, humility, modesty,
common sense and discretion,” as a specific enumeration of what is
meant by “exceptional gifts.” That is to say, he who would come
under the rule of Article 8, must excel in godliness, humility, modesty,
common sense and discretion. He must not only have all these char-
acteristics, but he must be exceptionally gifted with respect to them.

Several authorities have called attention to the incorrect punctuation
of our present day redactions of Article 8 on this score. Jansen,
Bouwman, H. H. Kuyper and Heyns all agree with the interpretation
as just indicated.

The first exceptional gift mentioned is godliness. The Latin expres-
sion is “pietas,” i. e. one who is pious, godly, moved by a reverence for
God, filled with consecration to God. This, to be sure, is the primary
requisite. Next, humility, from the Latin original “humilitas,” is men-
tioned. Godliness must be accompanied by humbleness of heart. One
who is exceptionally gifted stands in danger of becoming proud in
word and deed. He is also in danger of over-estimating his gifts and
abilities. Lack of humility would disqualify one for the ministry,
though he might be exceptionally gifted otherwise. Next modesty is
enumerated. The Latin word is “modestia,” which really indicates
morality. Doubtless our Dutch translation “zedigheid,” is to be pre-
ferred above our English “modesty.” The concept “modesty” is
closely akin to humility, the previous characteristic. However in the
original modestia seems to refer to a well-balanced, well-controlled
life, a life strictly moral. Then follows common sense. In Dutch we
find “goed verstand,” and in Latin “excelleus ingenium.” Just why
our English translation has rendered these expressions “common sense”
is not clear. The present Dutch, as well as the Latin original cer-
tainly refers to intellectual ability. Doubtless we should think in this
connection of keenness of intellect which is so essential for the correct
interpretation of Holy Writ. As our reading now stands, this very
essential qualification for all Ministers is not mentioned in Article 8.
Perhaps our translators, and Synod of 1920 which ratified this transla-
tion, felt that the expression “exceptional gifts” would refer to godli-
ness, modesty, etc., but to other gifts not mentioned by name. And in
that case one would, under the circumstances, think first of all of in-
tellectual gifts. But as we have said, the original Latin text simply
does not leave room for this interpretation. Furthermore, discretion is
mentioned. The Latin here is “prudentia,” and the Dutch “discretie.”

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

This word refers to clarity and soundness of judgment, i. e. the ability
to judge between true and false, right and wrong. Finally the enumer-
ation closes with “gifts of public address.” Latin: “eloquentia;”
Dutch: “gaven van welsprekendheid.” These original expressions do
not signify that the applicant must be eloquent of speech as we now
understand this term. But he must be able to express himself well in
public address. He must be able to address people with ease, clarity,
and in orderly fashion, without serious faults.

4. The procedure to be followed for admittance to the Ministry ac-
cording to Article 8. *

The last sentence of Article 8 states in a general way how an
aspirant to the ministry under this article should proceed. The “gen-
eral regulations” of which the very last clause speaks were officially
adopted by the Synod of 1922. These regulations specify in greater
detail what the exact mode of procedure should be.

We reproduce these rulings as rendered by Stuart and Hoeksema.
(Rules of Order, pp. 24, 25).

(1) If anyone desires to be admitted to the Ministry of the Word
according to Article 8, he must apply to his Consistory and
after that to his Classis. This Classis, in conjunction with
the Delegates for Examination of three adjacent Classes, first
examines the written credentials of the Consistory concerning
the required qualifications stated in Article 8 and subsequent-
ly itself investigates in this respect. If the preliminary judg-
ment is favorable, he shall be given the right to speak a word
of edification for a limited time in the vacant churches of his
Classis. He must also speak a few times in the non-vacant
Churches in the presence of the respective Ministers of these
churches. Classis shall regulate these appointments in con-
junction with the Consistories of those churches. Classis de-
termines the length of this period of probation.

(2) At the close of the period of probation the Classis, in conjunc-
tion with the said Delegates for Examination, takes a final
decision regarding the presence of exceptional gifts. If the
decision is in the affirmative, then the Classis shall take a
peremptory examination in the following branches:

a) Exegesis of Old and New Testaments;

b) Bible History;

c) Dogmatics;

d) General and American Church History.

(3) In case of favorable issue, he is declared eligible to a call.

(4) The examination for ordination follows later according to ex-
isting rules, except the classical languages. Acts 1922, Art.
37, X. (Agendum 1920, pages 26, 27.)

It will be noted that one who would become a Minister according to
Article 8 must have a knowledge of the facts far above the average,
even though he has never attended high school, college, or seminary.

We should consider it a favor of God when He from time to time
qualifies certain brethren for the ministry through the abundant in-
dwelling and blessings of the Holy Spirit, without the ordinary course
of study.

On the other hand, let us ever appreciate a sound and thorough
theological training, and let us ever hold in high esteem scholastic at-
tainment and a thorough preparation for the ministry.

And let us likewise remember that even for Ministers so exception-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ally gifted that they were admitted to the ministry without having
completed a theological course, a theological training would not have
been an item of luxury. For they will always be somewhat handi-
capped for lack of it, and would be abler workers in God's vineyard,
had they enjoyed its advantages.

ARTICLE IX

Preachers without fixed charge, or others who have left some
sect, shcUl not be admitted to the Ministry in the Church until
they have been decla/red eligible, after careful examination, by
the Classis, with the approval of Synod .

ADMITTING CHURCH-LESS PREACHERS OR LEADERS
OF SECTARIAN GROUPS

1. The historical background of this article.

In the unrevised Church Order of Dort Article 9 reads as follows:
“Novices, priests, monks, and others that have left some sect, shall not
be admitted to the service of the Church (as Ministers) except with
great carefulness and due consideration (groote zorgvuldigheid en
voorzichtigheid), and after they have been on probation for some
time.”

The word “novices” with which this reading of Article 9 opens is
taken from I Tim. 3:6. The Apostle enumerating the required quali-
ties for a bishop, says, “Not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall
into condemnation of the devil.” Our forebears apply this expression
in this connection to such as recently turned their backs upon the
Church of Rome, or upon the Anabaptist groups.

At the beginning of the Reformation it took real courage and con-
viction to leave the Church of Rome. But after the storm of perse-
cution began to subside, and when the Reformed Churches of Holland
received official recognition of the government, many insincere and un-
worthy individuals having served in the degenerate Church of Rome,
sought the ministry in the Reformation Churches. Consequently, the
Churches had to exercise the maximum of care regarding these nu-
merous applicants. The Synod of Dort, 1574, already decided: “Die
monniken ofte Papen geweest zijn, en zich tot de Kerkendienst be-
geeren te begeven, sal men niet toelaten dan van de Classe geexami-
neert zynde. . .” (Art. 20.) The element of classical examination is
not specifically mentioned in the redaction of 1618-19, but has been
re-incorporated in our reading of 1914.

The priests who sought admittance to the Reformed Churches as
Ministers were as a rule “vagabond priests,” priests who were indeed
ordained to office but who had no fixed charge. They preached and
baptized, etc., so Voetius informs us,1 wherever opportunity offered it-
self. Their work fell largely amongst migratory groups such as fish-
ermen, hunters, traveling small-tradesmen, inland boatsmen, etc. The
Reformed Church acknowledged the baptism administered by these
vagabond priests inasmuch as they held office in the Church of Rome.
(Our fathers looked uoon the Roman Church as being fearfully cor-

1. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. Ill, 660. cf. Bouwman: Qereformeercl Kerkrecht,
1928. I. 441.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

rupt, deformed, teaching and practicing God-dishonoring and un-
Biblical doctrine, but they did not deny that at heart it was a mani-
festation and representation of the body of Christ. Consequently,
they acknowledged the baptism administered by those duly appointed
by the Church of Rome.)

Monks belong neither to the clergy, nor to the laity with Rome.
They form a class of men which are under certain strict vows, pro-
moting sanctity and service, so they hold. Monks were therefore
not ordained to office by Rome and consequently the Reformation
Churches did not acknowledge Baptism administered by them.

Inasmuch as they were often men of theological learning, they could
be admitted to the ministry as far as their knowledge was concerned.
But the Churches had to exercise the utmost care with them. Many
were insincere and unworthy. Those that left the Anabaptists also
required a great deal of caution. The Anabaptists believed neither in
regular office-bearers nor in special training for the work of the min-
istry. Leadership in their service was open to all. Some of their
leaders could not even read or write. Consequently, the Anabaptists,
leaders and followers, were extremely weak in Scriptural under-
standing; and erroneous, subjective conceptions were common. It
stands to reason that the Churches had to use much discretion and
care in the admittance of this class of applicants to the ministry.

But times and circumstances have changed. The applicants with
which Article 9 in its original form concerned itself, are virtually non-
existent today. However our Churches in the United States of
America did meet with problems regarding the admission to the min-
istry, kindred to those of former centuries and which were governed
by Article 9. Consequently, our Synod of 1914 revised this article to
cover the new situation.

2. To which classes of applicants our present redaction of Article 9
refers.

In the first place Article 9 speaks of “preachers without fixed
charge." This phrase refers to Ministers, not of the Christian Re-
formed denomination, but of some other Reformed denomination, who
for some reason are no longer serving their congregation and who seek
to enter our pulpits and are desirous of obtaining a call from one of
our Churches.

It has happened in the past that a Minister would make his appear-
ance in our midst, uninvited and unlooked for, (as a rule hailing from
the Netherlands) and would begin to work for a call. With fluency of
speech and pleasant manners the favor of more than one vacant
Church would be gained. Yet upon close investigation by counselors
or Classes, it sometimes appeared that the man in question was not
at all desirable. But not all vacant Churches would always believe
the findings of those who investigated, and trouble, even permanent
division would result, (cf. the Van der Valk episode of a few decades
ago.)

The second type of applicants for the ministry in our Churches re-
ferred to in Article 9, are designated as “others who have left some
sect." This clause refers to such as have left some group or sect, and
claim that they have changed their views and have forsaken their
errors and now wish to be admitted to the ministry of our Churches.
In many cases, however, sad to say, these have proved to be insincere.
The men concerned were only looking for a livelihood it seems.

And yet an occasional one of these two classes of applicants may be
worthy. Now Article 9 points the way to worthy applicants of these

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

types. And, above all, it constitutes a safe-guard for the Churches
against unworthy individuals.

3. How can applicants referred to in Article 9 be admitted to tlie
ministry in our Churches?

Such applicants must apply to a Classis of our Churches, and ask
the Classis to declare him eligible for a call. This, however, no Clas-
sis may do unless it has first made a careful investigation. This care-
ful investigation includes more than an examination of certain cre-
dentials which the applicant may carry with him, for these may be
spurious, false, or not true to fact, or incomplete.

Furthermore, Classis must examine him, and may declare him eligi-
ble for a call, only after having gained the approval of Synod.

These are strict rules, but past experiences have taught the Churches
to be very careful and strict.

ARTICLE X

A Minister , once lawfully called , may not leave the congre-
gation with which he is connected , to accept a caU elsewhere,
without the consent of the Consistory, together with the Dea-
cons, and knowledge on the part of the Classis; likewise no
other Church may receive him until he has po'esented a proper
certificate of dismission from, the Church and the Classis where
he served.

Article 5 stipulates how a Minister serving one Church, may be
called by another Church. Article 10 does not repeat the stipulations
of Article 5, but the present article tells us how a Minister receiving
a call from another congregation should proceed if he desires to ac-
cept the call. In post-Reformation days, as Jansen remarks, there
were itinerant, self-appointed preachers who transgressed in the three-
fold way. First, they began to preach without an examination, and
without a calling; against this evil Articles 3 and 4 were formulated.
Secondly, these irregular preachers insisted on traveling from place
to place and refused to become the Minister of a certain Church; with
a view to this evil Article 7 was adopted. Thirdly, these men, if they
did not accept a call to a certain Church, would leave their Church
when they grew tired of it and when they saw fit, without consent of
the Consistory or Classis; against this irregularity Article 10 was
adopted.

1. Conditional and unconditional calls.

Originally Article 10 read as follows: “Een Dienaer, eens wettelyc-
ken beroepen zijnde, mach de Ghemeente, daarhij sonder conditie
aanghenomen is, niet verlaten. . . .” That is, “A Minister once law-
fully called, may not forsake the congregation which accepted him

without conditions ” The words “without conditions” were left

out of the Church Order as revised in 1905 by the Churches of Hol-
land. In the early days of the Reformed Churches of Holland, calls
were often issued conditionally. Some Ministers were forced to leave
their regular congregations to save their lives. They would remove
to another territory where the persecution was not pressed. Often

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

this would be across the national borders. Some regularly organized
Church or some refugee Church might desire the services of one of the
refugee Ministers. In such a case the call letter would stipulate that
the Minister was free to return to his own Church when conditions
would permit. But there was a second reason why calls were often
extended with a condition attached. Since there were no regular
training schools for the ministry many Ministers were not very com-
petent, and hence Ministers were often called to serve for a certain
period on trial. If they proved to be undesirable because they lacked
knowledge or did not study sufficiently, or did not show Christian con-
secration, no permanent call was issued.

When persecution ceased, and when only those were called to the
Ministry who had previously been declared candidates, there was no
longer need for the provision of conditional calls. Moreover, con-
ditional calls, so it was judged, were not ideal. For emergency situ-
ations they are permissible. But for ordinary circumstances the best
interests of the Church of Christ requires that calls be for a definite
period. Unconditional calls are also in full harmony with Scripture
since Prophets and Apostles were called of God for life. However, if
ever the conditions become extraordinary once more, or if any Church
finds itself in extraordinary circumstances, conditional calls would be
permissible. Needless to say, no Classes should ever approve of
conditional calls unless there are very extraordinary and weighty
reasons.

2. The duty of a Minister toward the Church he is serving, when he
desires to accept a call to another Church.

A Minister “may not leave the congregation with which he is con-
nected” without consent of his fellow office-bearers in the Church
which he is serving. In Dutch the expression “niet verlaten” is used.
This does not simply mean “not to leave”, but “not to forsake.” It
is the same word that Scripture employs when it tells us that hus-
bands shall not forsake their wives. There is a bond of union be-
tween a Minister and his flock, which is, not identical with the bond
of union between husband and wife, but which is akin to the mar-
riage bond. Pastor and flock belong together. And not without
prayerful weighty reasons should this bond be broken.

Neither is it up to the Minister alone to decide that he must sever
his connections with his Church. Article 10 clearly and specifically
states that no Minister shall accept a call to another congregation
except his fellow office-bearers of the Church he is serving (Consistory
and Deacons), give their consent. In other words, Article 10 pre-
scribes that when a Minister comes to the conclusion that he should
accept a certain call, such a Minister must inform the Consistory and
the Deacons and seek their consent. It stands to reason that the
Minister is required to state, in a general way at least, why he feels
that he should accept the call in question. How else could the Con-
sistory and the Diaconate reach a conscientious decision?

In their considerations the Elders and Deacons may not be governed
by personal favor or antipathy, but only by the facts at hand. The
glory of God through the coming of His Kingdom should control
them also in this case.

If ever the Elders and Deacons feel that they should not give con-
sent, and when a frank and mutual discussion fails to change the
mind of a Minister as well as that of the Elders and Deacons, then
the case goes to Classis for disposal.

It is rather remarkable that this very plain stipulation of our

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Church Order is almost completely ignored in our Churches. To the
best of our knowledge the great majority of our Ministers, when they
wish to accept a call, simply notify the Church whose call they are
accepting, and then give notice to the Church they are serving.
Others accept and then ask consent of the Consistory by way of
asking ministerial credentials, of which anon.

Yet the way prescribed in Article 10 is the only correct procedure.
The tie that binds the Minister and his Church was not made, as
far as human factors are concerned, merely by the Minister, but by
him and the office-bearers for the congregation. It is no more than
reasonable that both parties also co-operate when the tie is severed.

It stands to reason that it would seldom happen that a Minister,
after prayerful consideration, would feel that he should accept a call,
that then his fellow office-bearers would refuse to release him. But
it is worthy of note that many years ago it often happened (namely
in the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands), that a Minister de-
sired to accept a call to another Church, but that the decisions of
Consistory and Classis were contrary, so that he continued to labor
in the Church which he thought he should leave. *

3. Approval on the part of the Classis also required.

Article 10 here prescribes that a Minister who desires to leave his
charge in order to accept a call to another congregation, must also
notify his Classis. This notification should precede the actual, official
acceptance of a call. This is clear from the wording of Article 10,
for it plainly states that a Minister shall not accept a call to another
Church without the knowledge of Classis. This provision aims at
more than a mere notification for information.

The fact that Article 10 requires more than a formal notification
to Classis is also evident from the original Dutch wording. It uses
the phrase “met voorweten van de Classe.” Now the expression “met
voorweten”, fully rendered in English would read: “with prior knowl-
edge of.” The Minister who desires to accept a call to another
Church must therefore seek consent from his Consistory not only, but
also the approval of the Classis. And that before he notifies the
calling Church that he has accepted their call.

Why should a Classis have this opportunity? Because the Classis
has a very definite interest in the matter. There may be so many
vacancies in the Classis or in the neighborhood of the Church which
the Minister concerned is serving, that in the estimation of the Classis
he cannot well be spared at that time. Classis may also judge that
the continued labors of that particular Minister are very desirable in
the Church which he is serving.

This acknowledgment of Classical rights would not prohibit a Min-
ister from sending a provisional letter of acceptance to the Church
concerned. He should notify the Consistory of the calling Church that
he has determined to accept the call of their Church; that his present
Consistory has given its consent; and that he is seeking classical ap-
proval. In our day a matter of this kind would go directly to Classis
if a meeting of Classis is near at hand. If not, the matter would go
to the Classical Committee, which in most Classes is charged by
Classis to act for it in such matters between sessions of Classis.

1. For instances see Bouwman: Ctereforxneerd Kerkreoht, I, pp. 444, B.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

4. Certificates which a Minister must present to the Church having
called him, before he can be installed.

Article 10 mentions two certificates which a Minister must present
to the Church in which he is to be installed. One from the Church
which he has just served, and one from the Classis to which this
Church belongs. Certain official and important matters require offi-
cial documents. This is for the safety of all concerned. Mere verbal
assurances are sometimes unreliable.

What should these certificates certify? According to Article 5
these certificates must give testimony to the fact that the Minister
concerned is sound as to doctrine, and worthy and desirable as to his
conduct. Or as Article 5 literally states, he must show “good ecclesi-
astical testimonies of doctrine and life.”

In the case of a Minister changing from one Church to another,
when does his term of office officially cease in the Church he is leav-
ing, and when does it begin in his new charge? Synod of 1926 ruled
that, “When a Minister changes pastorates, the new Church becomes
responsible for his salary, etc., from the day of his farewell in the
former charge, unless some other terms were agreed upon between
the Minister and the new Consistory (as, for example, in the matter
of a vacation.)” Acts 1926, Art. 57, p. 7.

Should a Minister entertaining a call from another Church always
confer with his Consistory, and ask the brethren whether in their
opinion he should continue his labors with them or accept the call?
If the Minister is fully persuaded that his Consistory is anxious to
have him continue his labors with them, such a consultation is hardly
necessary. But as a rule it is no doubt advisable that the Minister
consult his fellow office-bearers. A frank discussion and a frank vote
may be very' Beneficial for him. If a Consistory really feels that a
change would be good for both Minister and congregation they should
be fair and frank enough to say so. And it stands to reason that a
Minister should not lightly ignore the opinion of his Consistory, al-
though the decision rests with him and not with the Consistory. That
is to say, if a Minister is persuaded in mind and heart that God would
have him continue his labors in the Church he is serving, then he
must decline the call under consideration, even though the Consistory
should desire to see him go.

ARTICLE XI.

On the other hand, the Consistory , as representing the con-
gregation, shall also be bound to provide for the proper support
of its Ministers, and shall not dismiss them from service withy-
out the knowledge and approbation of the Classis and of the
Delegates of the (particular) Synod .

SUPPORT AND DISMISSAL.

This and the foregoing article are closely related. Article H) stipu-
lates what the obligations of a Minister toward his Church are. He
may not forsake his Church. Departure for another field of labor
must be in keeping with the rules adopted, including consent of the
Consistory of the Church he desires to leave. Article 11, on the other

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

hand, specifies the Church’s duty toward its Ministers. It may not
forsake him. He is entitled to proper support, etc.

1. Proper ministerial support.

Why do our Churches stipulate in the present article that our Min-
isters must be properly supported? In the first place from considera-
tions of expediency. It is to the best interest of the Churches that
their Ministers receive sufficient support. If our Ministers were not
supported by the Churches which they serve they would have to sup-
port themselves. This would prevent them from giving all their time
and attention to the all-important work of the ministry. Insufficient
support would compel the Ministers concerned to seek other means
of income with which to augment their insufficient salaries.

Now it is not below the dignity of any man to engage in some
secular art or trade. Not at all. It was not below the dignity of the
great Apostle Paul to do the work of a tent-maker at Corinth. (Paul,
let us remember, plied his trade of tent-maker at Corinth because
of a certain narrow, unwholesome, critical spirit which prevailed
there. He supported himself so that none could say that Paul sought
himself, and so that the Gospel might have its free course, (cf. I Cor.
9:12.) Neither would it be below the dignity of any one of our Min-
isters or theological professors to work in an office or factory; to
run a farm, carpenter shop, or grocery store. But it is very emphat-
ically inadvisable. Ministers should give all their time and thought
and energy to the great and glorious calling which is theirs. If they
do not, the Churches are bound to suffer spiritually. Therefore
Churches must see to it, if at all possible, that Ministers do not have
to forsake their calling in the least. Let the words of I Cor. 6:12,
“All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient”, also
be remembered in this connection.

Secondly, Churches should properly provide for their Ministers be-
cause Scripture demands this very specifically. When Jesus sent
forth His disciples to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, He said that
they needed not to make prior provisions for their needs, “. . . for
the laborer is worthy of his food” (Matt. 10:10). And again, “the
laborer is worthy of his hire.” (Luke 10:7). In I Cor. 9 Paul tells
us that proper support of those that labor in the Gospel is the natural
and normal thing. He shows us that the principle which would dic-
tate this support is operative in the natural realm, as it was also by
God’s decree in the spiritual service of the Old Testament dispensa-
tion. And then he concludes with the unmistakable dictum: “Even
so did the Lord ordain that they that proclaim the Gospel should live
of the gospel” (I Cor. 9:14).

Furthermore, the primary application of the much quoted passage,
“Be not deceived, God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth,
that shall he also reap,” (Gal. 6:7) pertains to the proper support of
those that labor in the Gospel.

What does the Church Order mean when it speaks of proper sup-
port? He who receives a salary which permits him to work with
undue worries, and with reasonable comfort, may be said to receive
proper support.

It may also be said in this connection, that the term “proper sup-
port”, from the nature of the case, includes more than the bare neces-
sities of life. For example: a Minister certainly should be able to pay
off his Student debts. He should also be able to buy books constantly.
And books as a rule are expensive. He should also be able to give

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

liberally, as a good example to others. And for the sake of his calling
he should be able to present a neat appearance.

Local and individual circumstances should also be considered by a
Church when it seeks to determine which salary to pay. For instance,
the prices for food and clothing are not the same for every section
of the country. And some have small families, whereas others have
large families. We have heard of one of our Churches which called
its Minister for a certain stipulated sum, plus $100 for every depend-
ent child in the family. This basic salary plan is also in operation
in some of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands. Missionaries
of various denominations have for years been paid according to this
plan. We certainly would endorse it, inasmuch as it appears alto-
gether just and in strict harmony with the present article.

Would it be wise and just to work for uniform salaries? Some
have contended that it would be. But there simply is too much varia-
tion as to living expenses between the various localities in which our
Churches are found; between city and rural communities; and be-
tween small families and large families. And every Minister, ac-
cording to Article 11, should receive enough to support himself and
his family. The exact amount should be determined according to local
and individual conditions.

Let us not fail to acknowledge, however, that there has been, and
that there still is too much irregularity. Some Ministers receive much
larger salaries than others; in some instances twice as much as
others, although the needs and requirements are equal. In general
it may be said that we should remedy this situation by urging all our
Churches to do their utmost, and by giving substantial subsidies to
weak Churches in order that these may bring the salaries of their
Ministers to a proper level. Large and strong Churches should ever
be ready to help their small and weak sister Churches. The words
of Holy Writ: “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law
of Christ.” (Gal. 6:2), were not only written for individual Christians,
but also for Churches.

Each Church is at liberty to gather the salary of its Minister as
it sees fit. However, money raising schemes such as bazaars, baked-
goods sales, etc., to which many Churches of our land have resorted,
stand condemned. The giving should always be voluntary and from
a motive of love and duty toward the Kingdom. Most of our Churches
for some years past have employed the budget system for all their
congregational expenses, including the salaries of Ministers. Weekly
contributions are made by means of “budget envelopes.” The budget
contribution, it should be remembered, is also a gift, not a payment
of an ecclesiastical tax. No Consistory may assume to tax the mem-
bers of its Church. All our giving for the Church should be held on
a high plane. Giving for the Church of God should also be an act
of worship, gratitude, and joy. He who gives under compulsion misses
a real blessing, and dishonors God and His Church. Consistories, on
the other hand, may and must admonish those who fail to give ac-
cording to the measure of prosperity which God has given them. But
mere taxation should not be tolerated in God’s Church. Consistories
may and should inform the congregation as to the amount needed to
cover thq budget. But a member should not feel that he has done his
full duty if he has given the average of what is required per family
in order to “raise the budget.” Some can and should give far more
than the average for the sake of those that cannot nearly reach the
average.

In former yeara, both in Europe and in America, the Minister’s

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

salary would be raised in part at least through the renting of pews.
Some Churches still have this practice. The custom has met with in-
creasing disfavor, however, and rightly so. It is not in harmony with
the Lord’s admonition as found in James 2:1-5. Some Churches main-
tain “family pews” although not charging pew-rent. Definite pews
are assigned to each family. This practice has much in its favor.
Parents and children belong together in God’s providence. Why should
they separate, as is often done in our Churches today, when they
worship God in His house ? Our present custom of free pews for ali,
has points in its favor, but it also has its defects. The assigned pew
plan would at least keep parents and children together in worship.
And that would also promote attentiveness and good order on the
part of the growing youth.

If a Minister should be a man of means, then would his Church
nevertheless be obligated to support him? I Cor. 9 leaves no room
for doubt. It clearly teaches that such as labor in the Gospel are en-
titled to live by the Gospel. 'There is no intimation at all that such
as have other means of subsistence, are not entitled to support. Also,
during Old Testament times the Priests and Levites received tithes
regardless of their personal circumstances. This was by command of
God. Hence we take it, our Church Order makes no exception, but
simply states what the Churches should do in all cases. The moneys
to which their labors entitle Ministers of some means (to be sure a
rather hypothetical class of Ministers as far as our Church is con-
cerned) these moneys are theirs, to use or to give away as they see
fit, and concerning which they shall have to render an account before
God. Of course, if any Minister of means desires to labor for but a
small salary, or for no salary at all, that would be entirely his busi-
ness. And in case the Church concerned should happen to be a poor
struggling Church, good-will of this type certainly would be very
commendatory.

2. Dismissal from service.

Dismissal according to Article 11 is not suspension, and far less
is it deposition, (cf. Art. 79 and SO.) A dismissed Minister is one
who has been debarred from his ministerial rights and duties in the
Church whose Minister he is. Or again, a dismissed Minister is one
who is not allowed to exercise his ministerial duties in his own
Church. As far as the active execution of his duties in his own Church
is concerned, a dismissed Minister is a debarred Minister. He has
been barred from his ministerial work in and for his Church. If any
other Church asks him to preach for them or to work in their midst,
he is fully at liberty to do so. He is also eligible for a call from an-
other Church.

Troubles and difficulties may arise which make it impossible or un-
desirable that a Minister continue to serve his Church, even though
these troubles and difficulties are not of such a nature that the Min-
ister must be suspended (depriving him temporarily of his ministerial
rights for the whole denomination), or that he must be deposed.
(Again cf. Art. 79 and 80.) Now Article 11 provides that in such a
case the Consistory can notify Classis of the sad state of affairs and
seek the approval of Classis for its desire to debar their Minister
from exercising his ministerial rights and duties in and for their con-
gregation. If Classis, together with the three Synodical Delegates,
deems debarment necessary or advisable, it so decides. Proper notice
of this action is then made and notice is given to the Churches that
the brother is permitted to preach the Word and to administer the

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Sacraments elsewhere, and that he is eligible for a call from any
Church which may desire his services. As a rule the dismissing
Church agrees to pay the Minister part of his salary for a few
months to come.

This article does therefore not apply when a Minister is doctrinally
unsound or wanting in his Christian conduct. Dismissal may never
be substituted for suspension or deposition. Neither may Article 11
be used when a congregation or Consistory desires to “get rid” of
its Minister for insufficient and unworthy reasons. But this article
does apply when the relationship between a Church and its Minister
has become so strained that real co-operation seems impossible, or
when the congregation refuses to support him (wrong though this
may be in and by itself), or when it is evident that he cannot be a
blessing unto the Church concerned because of past happenings. It
may be that wide differences as to character constantly make for trou-
ble, or that a certain Minister lacks native ability to labor successfully
for many years. Situations may arise which do not call for suspension
or deposition, but very definitely for dismissal.

During the first century after the Reformation, Ministers were
sometimes transferred by the Classes from one Church to another.
As Church life became better regulated and close supervision was
exercised over those who sought the ministry and their admission to
office, different situations regarding Ministers and their Churches be-
gan to decrease, and transference was less^, necessary. But, more im-
portant, it was also recognized that this latter procedure was really
hierarchical, Roman Catholic in origin, and not Reformed. Conse-
quently a concluding provision of Article 11, which permitted a Classis
to transfer a Minister from one Church to another in case he was
not supported properly, was dropped by the Reformed Churches of
Holland in 1905 and also by our Churches in 1914. The provision,
let it be said, had been obsolete and out of practice for many years.

Why may no Consistory discharge its Ministers from active service
in its Church without the knowledge and approbation of the Classis
and of the Synodical Delegates? To guard against abuse. When a
congregation is in a disturbed condition and feelings run high, abuse
so easily creeps in. Often the parties most intimately involved and
concerned can not judge objectively. They may speak and act very
unjustly, though hardly aware of it. And unjust debarment of Min-
isters from the execution of their God-given calling is, of course, al-
ways calamitous for both Ministers and congregations, and an evil
against which we must safeguard ourselves.

Furthermore, the Minister concerned will object in every case well
nigh. Also when there is just cause for debarment. Consequently
Classis must decide as the logical and best qualified and authoritative
third party.

And, not to be forgotten, no one is merely Minister of his own local
Church. He has received the privilege to preach the Word and to
administer the Sacraments in any Church of the denomination. (Only
upon proper request, of course.) In fact, he has been placed in office
with the approval of Classis. No local Church, as long as it lives un-
der the Church Order, can ordain a man to the ministry in and by
itself. Neither can it depose, suspend, or debar a Minister from his
office without the approval of Classis.

What is the standing of a Minister who has been dismissed from
his charge? He continues to be a Minister of the local Church which
he was serving, but he has been barred from exercising the rights
and duties of the ministerial office in his own congregation. He awaits

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

a call from another congregation. When a call comes which he ac-
cepts his ministerial certificate will state the facts of his case objec-
tively and briefly. With the acceptance of a call to another Church
he ceases to be a Minister of the Church he is leaving.

The relation of a debarred Minister toward his Church is therefore
akin to that of an emeritus Minister to his Church. The latter was
excused from active execution of his ministerial duties, although he
continues to be a Minister of the Church concerned. For instance:
If an emeritus Minister should have to be deposed, this sad task
would fall to the Consistory of the Church he served last and its
Classis, would it not? So also the debarred Minister officially con-
tinues to be Minister of the Church that debarred him.

In case no call is forthcoming, the debarred Minister will ultimately
lose all his ministerial rights. His abnormal position can, from the
nature of the case, be only temporary. By force of circumstances he
would sooner or later “enter upon a secular vocation” (Article 12),
inasmuch as his Church cannot be expected to support him indefi-
nitely, and because the position of a debarred Minister is from its
very nature temporary.

ARTICLE XII.

Inasmuch as a Minister of the Word , once lawfully/ called as
described above, is bound to the service of the Church for life ,
he is not allowed to enter wpon a secular vocation except for such
weighty reasons as shall receive the approval of the Classis.

Article 12 in the first place posits the principle that a Minister is
bound to the service of the Church for life. Next the article states a
rule which follows from this principle of service for life; namely,
that a Minister may not enter upon a secular vocation. Thirdly, the
article allows for exceptions to the rule that Ministers may not leave
the ministry to engage in a secular calling.

1. The principle of life-long service.

The Roman Church teaches that the nature of the ecclesiastical of-
fice is such that he who once receives the office can never lose it. The
office and the office-bearer are inseparably united for life. Consequent-
ly, when an office-holder in the Roman Church makes himself unwor-
thy of his office, that office is not taken from him, but he is merely
prohibited from exercising it.

This is not our position. Yet we hold that a Minister “is bound to
the service of the Church for life.” Why? In the first place because
this is Biblical. Even in Old Testament days Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
and other Prophets were called to the Ministry for life. The disciples
also and the apostles and evangelists were “separated” unto their
ministry, not temporarily, but permanently, for life.

Scripture also indicates that the service of the Word demands our
undivided love, (John 21:15-17; II Cor. 5:14) our full time, (John 9:4)
our readiness of will, (I Cor. 9:16,17) our unfailing perseverance
(II Tim. 4:1-6) and our complete separation unto the work (Rom. 1:1).

In full harmony with this principle of life-long service it may be
noted th£t the internal call to the ministry in the heart of the future
Ministers, is always interpreted to be a call for life.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Let it also be remembered that the dignity of the office of the min-
istry of the Word is advanced by appointment for life. And it is also
true that young men can hardly be expected to go through a course
of training extended over many years unless they can look forward
to the ministry as a life-long work.

2. What the term “secular vocation” signifies.

The word “secular” is here used in contrast with “spiritual,” and
is applied to things belonging to this world and man’s life upon this
earth from its material, temporal aspect.

By secular callings we therefore understand arts and trades which
pertain primarily to the temporal things of life. Such are all occu-
pations and positions which do not belong to the gospel ministry in
its primary form, (the preaching of the Gospel in regularly organized
Churches, or to people not yet believers), not to the gospel ministry
in its secondary and derived forms, (such as held by professors of
theology, teachers of Bible, Ministers at institutions of mercy, etc.).
School teachers, farmers, lawyers, builders, etc., therefore perform
secular vocations.

Needless to add, the Church Order does not mean to imply that
secular vocations should not be performed spiritually. “Whether,
therefore, ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of
God” (I Cor. 10:31).

3. Why does the Church Order allow for exceptions to Article 12?

As noted above, the ministerial office is not irrevocably united with

the person of the Minister. Nowhere in Holy Writ do we find a rule
which would uphold this view. The office-holder can lose his office.
Ministers are called and ordained for life in harmony with Biblical
example and the nature of their internal calling and for reasons of
great desirability. But conditions may arise, in the providence of God,
because of which a Minister is warranted to leave his office. For ex-
ample: a Minister might be called to fill an important chair in a
Christian college; or to occupy a very responsible position in the
government of his country; or a Minister may be compelled to as-
sume a secular position when upon debarment according to Article
11 he receives no new field of labor. Another may find that he lacks
the necessary gifts and qualifications for the ministry, and thus feels
himself bound in conscience to withdraw. Still another may be so
disturbed and handicapped by doubts as to his divine calling to the
ministry that ultimate withdrawal from office is permissible and ad-
visable.

But withdrawal from office is a very serious matter. Our fathers
felt that the matter was so all-important that it should not be left
merely to the Minister’s own judgment. And not even to that of the
Minister and his Consistory. In all cases the judgment of Classis
must be sought, and no withdrawal from the ministry is permitted to
take effect without its approval. And to this the Reformed Churches
of Holland have added in 1920: “Welk oordeel de Classis niet zal
uitspreken zonder kennis en approbatie van de deputaten der Par-
ticuliere Synode.” This means that in Holland today no Classis can
sanction withdrawal from the ministry without prior approval of the
delegates of the Particular Synod. This provision is altogether in
harmony with the Reformed principle of denominational unity. It
should also be added that the Churches of Holland by the addition of
1920 merely restored what the early Reformed Churches had written
into Article 12, but which had been eliminated in later years. It
might be well to incorporate this provision in this article by adding

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

to it: “not without the approval of the Synodical Delegates.” It af-
fords additional safety against abuse, and even as the Churches in
general were recognized through their Synodical Delegates when the
Minister in question was admitted to the ministry, so also these
Churches should be recognized when the Minister concerned wishes
to leave his office.

We have already indicated some reasons for leaving the ministry
which may be termed worthy and sufficient. But the motives of those
who desire to enter upon a secular vocation are not always worthy
and sufficient. As unworthy and insufficient reasons for leaving the
ministry we note the following: Seeking to escape the burden of the
work of the ministry; aggravated by troubles in the Consistory or
Church, or both; desiring greater financial income and luxuries of
life; craving for greater honor and social prestige; seeking to escape
confession, etc., after one has fallen into sin and abuse of office.

4. Entering upon a secular vocation without consent.

What should a Church and Classis do when a Minister forsakes his
office and engages in a secular vocation without proper sanction or
contrary to the decision of his Church and Classis? They should ad-
monish the brother concerned, and endeavor to show him the error
of his way.

It may happen that a Minister resigns from office and that the
Consistory and Chassis really feel that he is unfit for the minister.
In such a case these bodies might be tempted to let matters run. This,
however, would be against the Church Order. In such a case the
brother concerned should be urged to seek release from office in the
regular way. Respect for the high office of the ministry and for the
good order of the Churches demands this. No one should ever be
permitted to trifle with the office of the ministry.

Anyone who persists in resigning from office and refuses to seek
release in the prescribed way, or who persists in resigning his minis-
terial office contrary to the decision of his Consistory and Classis, such
a one should be suspended and if need be, deposed from office, (cf.
Art. 80.)

Jansen 1 answers the question whether a Minister, who forsakes
his office contrary to the mind of his Consistory and Classis, becomes
subject to discipline or not, negatively. He states that one who de-
serts his office may have to be censured as an individual member, but
that he cannot be disciplined as an office-bearer. With this latter judg-
ment we disagree. Jansen finds that the phrases “faithless desertion
of office or intrusion upon that of another” as found in Article 80
(which article indicates sins “worthy of being punished with suspen-
sion or deposition from office”) do not require or permit discipline for
those who leave the ministry unlawfully. In his judgment Article 80
refers only to Ministers who leave their own Churches and begin to
preach and work elsewhere, without forsaking their ministerial office
as such. But this interpretation of Article 80 is faulty. To be sure,
he who leaves his own Church and begins to work and preach else-
where is guilty of “faithless desertion of office”. But so is he that
enters upon a secular vocation without just cause and contrary to
his Consistory and Classis. Article 80 as we now have it was essen-
tially already adopted by the Weselian Convention, 1568, the very
first general ecclesiastical assembly of the Church of Holland. In the
Weselian rules our present “faithless desertion of office or intrusion
upon that of another,” reads: “oneerlijke onderkruijpinge van een

1. Joh. Jansen: Xorte Verklaring, etc. 1923, p. 55.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

anders plaatse, verlatinge zijnes Dienst en zijne Gemeynte sonder
wettelijke toestemminge,” (Wesel, Chap. VII, Art. 14). The matter
of Article 80 is covered in Article 10 of the Church Order of 1578.
The rule of 1568 was rewritten by the Synod of 1578, but no essential
changes were made. In this Church Order the phrases in which we
are at present interested, read as follows: “trouloose verla tinge sijnes
Dienste en indringinge in eens anders dienst.” Three years later,
Synod of 1581, another very slight change was introduced in the ex-
pression under discussion. The connective particle “en” was changed
to “ofte”, resulting in the following reading: “trouloose verlatinge
zijnes Dienst, ofte indringinge in eens anders Dienst.” Synod of 1618-
19 left the article unchanged on this point. And thus it stands today.
We believe that the foregoing facts clearly indicate that Article
80 of our Church Order, refers not only to those who would
leave their own Churches to begin preaching elsewhere, but
also to those who leave their Churches without doing ministerial
work elsewhere. Consequently we hold that according to Article 80,
he who resigns or forsakes his office unlawfully becomes subject to
discipline as an office-bearer.

It is worthy of note that the older readings of Article 80, including
the redaction of 1618-19, divide the two members of the phrase just
discussed by means of a comma. This comma is not found in our
present Church Order editions. Perhaps the loss of the comma has
helped to promote an unhistorical interpretation of the stipulation.

Dr. Rutgers 1 does not commit himself on the question, whether
deserters from office are subject to discipline or not.

This having been said, we add that in real exceptional cases, when
the situation is somewhat dubious, or when extenuating circumstances
are clearly present, a Consistory and Classis may be at liberty to
acquiesce (submit quietly) in the fact that a Minister has assumed
a secular vocation. A dismissed Minister, for instance, not receiving
a call from another Church, may feel himself compelled and in duty
bound to assume a secular vocation. Circumstances may be such that
a Consistory and Classis dare not find fault with the brother, nor
demand of him that he seek release from office in the regular way.
But at all events the responsibility for the brother’s step should be
left to him. The Consistory concerned should declare to the Churches
that the party in question has entered upon a secular vocation entire-
ly upon his own responsibility and that the Consistory and Classis
have decided to acquiesce, and that the brother is therefore no longer
a Minister of the Gospel.

Almost needless to say, those who leave the ministry for a secular
vocation lose all pulpit rights. They may not serve in the Churches
as exhorters, unless special permission is granted. And no Classis
should extend this privilege unless the brother concerned left the
ministry with full approval of the ecclesiastical bodies involved, and
unless there are very weighty reasons for extending this privilege.
And to be sure, the Churches must request this privilege. No one
should receive permission to exhort as a personal favor.

1. cf. Rutgers: Kerkelijke Adviesen 1921, and College-voordrachten. Gere-
formeerd Kerkrecht, 1918.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY
ARTICLE XIII.

Ministers , who by reason of age , sickness , or otherwise , ore
rendered incapable of performing the duties of their Office, shall
nevertheless retain the honor and title of a Minister, and the
Church which they have served shall provide honorably for
them in their need (likewise for the orphans and widows of
Ministers) out of the common fund of the Churches, according
to the general ecclesiastical ordinances in this matter. 1

Article 11 regulates dismissal from service. Article 12 concerns
entrance upon a secular vocation. The present article concerns emeri-
tation. The word “emeritus” is Latin and was formerly used of a
Roman soldier “who had served his time, a veteran.” An emeritus
Minister is therefore one who has served his time, one no longer in
active service. Lately the terms superannuated and emeritus have
been used among ds.

A standard dictionary tells us that to superannuate signifies: “to
incapacitate by age; retire on account of age.” This same authority
defines emeritus as follows: “retired from active service (as on ac-
count of age), but retained in an honorary position; as, pastor emeri-
tus.” From this it appears that we should persist in the use of the
words emeritus and emeritation. For the specific meaning of these
words harmonizes with our position regarding retired Ministers as
expressed in Article 13.

1. Valid reasons for emeritation.

Two valid reasons for emeritation are specifically named in this
article: age and sickness. When one becomes too old to perform his
office properly, emeritation is in order. The Church Order does not
designate a definite age. Some denominations permit their Ministers
to retire at 65, others at 70. We are glad that our Churches have
never named a definite figure. Some men are older at 60 than others
at 75. Also here God is our sovereign disposer. And so every case
should be judged on its own merits. We surely need earnest and ex-
perienced leaders. And a hard and fast rule would rob the Churches
of some of their best qualified leaders. Would anyone think of barring
men from our legislative, executive, and judicial halls at Washington,
D.C., just because they reached a certain age? Of course not. For
it is a fact that the real leaders in the affairs of our nation are as a
rule elderly men. Even at 80 and older, some statesmen are still ac-
tive and influential.

The tendency on the part of our Churches, and of other Churches
as well, “to shelve” older Ministers, is partly due no doubt to the
Ministers themselves. They should keep abreast of their time, and
remain aggressive and persistently seek to apply the truth of God,
not merely according to conditions as they were known during by-
gone decades, nor merely to needs which are common to every cen-
tury of Christianity, but also to contemporary conditions and prob-
lems.

However, the tendency under consideration is due in no small meas-
ure to spiritual shallowness on the part of our Churches. A good
speaker, though he be a poor pastor and lacks spiritual depth and
earnestness, is to many a “good Minister.” And a man with average

1. Synod of 1939 adopted a new reading of Article 13. See note appended
to our discussion of this article, page 67.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

speaking abilities but with exceptional pastoral qualifications, spir-
itual depth, judicious judgment, and a wide experience, is often re-
ferred to as “no good.” The younger man who with oratorical flash
and catch phrases preaching a topical sermon, is much preferred by
many to an older man, who expounds and applies the Word of God
to his flock, and who by means of thorough expository sermons brings
to view the jewels of God’s eternal truth and the treasures of heaven-
ly comfort and direction.

Who would try to deny that this attitude reveals spiritual shal-
lowness? Do not interpret these comments to be mere indictments
of our people. For, as has been indicated, the responsibility for this
spiritual shallowness must, to a large extent, be placed at the very
doors of the Ministers themselves. For are not they the spiritual
leaders and teachers of our people? Of course, we should not forget
that there are extenuating circumstances. The spirit of the age is
against our Ministers. We live in an age and land of shallowness.
Again, many of our Ministers are too busy with all kinds of activities
which lie at best on the periphery, and not at the center of the circle
of their responsibilities as Ministers. Many of them lack time for the
best pulpit work of which they are capable. But it is no less true
that our Ministers have yielded too much to the spirit of the age, and
they have digressed somewhat from thorough and fervent expository
preaching. They have catered to the shallowness of some, perverting
their tastes still more, and starting others in that direction con-
stantly.

Now this whole situation has led us to depreciate to an unwar-
ranted extent many of our abler older Ministers. But, for all that,
we need them and they can be of very valuable service to us. For
this reason a hard and fast rule as to age of retirement should not
be made. Article 13 is specific enough. The remedy for undesirable
situations does not lie in the direction of “shelving.”

The second valid reason for emeritation specifically named is sick-
ness. Little need be said in this connection. Continued illness as a
rule naturally renders a Minister incapable of performing the duties
of his office.

After mentioning age and sickness, the Church Order adds, “or
otherwise.” This refers to conditions pertaining to the person of the
Minister, just as age and sickness do. For the expressions are clearly
kindred. The word “otherwise” simply refers to conditions which can
be justly classified with old age and sickness. For example: nervous
break-downs, permanent bodily injury, etc. Let it also be said that
aged Ministers should not serve too long. If the advancing years or
the increasing weaknesses of old age hinder a Minister from doing
justice to all the work that is required of him, he ought to seek
emeritation. He may not sacrifice his church’s welfare for his own
benefit. And our Churches should never exact the utmost from our
Ministers. To demand that a Minister continue to serve to the bitter
end of his life, during his fast declining years, is neither charitable
nor wise. Let us not forget in this connection that our retired Min-
isters can still serve the Churches in a variety of capacities. They
are not doomed to fruitlessness and inactivity just because they have
been relieved from strenuous duties.

2. The standing of emeritus Ministers.

« , Tiie emeritus Minister, so the Church Order stipulates, retains the
‘honor and title of a Minister.” In other words, he remains in office.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 63

If the phrase meant anything less than that, no emeritus Minister
could administer the Word and the Sacraments.

Furthermore, he continues to be the Minister of the local congre-
gation which he last served. For no one according to Reformed
Church polity and our own Church Order, can be an office-bearer,
except he be such of a particular Church or congregation.

What, then, is the standing of an emeritus Minister? Simply this:
He is a full-fledged Minister of the Gospel of the Church which he
served when he became emeritus. But he has been excused from the
active execution of his ministerial duties. He does not have to preach.
But he may if requested to do so. He does not have to attend Con-
sistory meetings. But he may, if he is asked to do so. His relation
to his Church even permits of his delegation to Classis and Synod.

True, many emeritus Ministers leave their Church and become
members of some other Church. But even so, he continues to be the
Minister of the Church he served last. This is also plain from the
fact that if ever deposition from office would become necessary, this
would be the task of said Church and the Classis to which it belongs.
The emeritus Minister who removes from his congregation remains
officially connected with this Church as a Minister. As an individual
member he can join the Church to which he moves. He may even
serve the Church to which he removes after emeritation, as Elder
or Deacon. But as a Minister he remains with the Church he last
served as Minister.

These opinions let it be said, are not at all new or original with us.
They follow logically from the fact that the particular Churches are
our ecclesiastical units, and that Reformed Church polity does not
know a big super-Church of which one can be a member, and of which
the particular Churches are but sub-divisions. Church membership
attaches itself to the particular Churches and not to the denomina-
tion as such. The same principle holds for the offices recognized and
maintained by us. And to be sure, these opinions have the full back-
ing of men like Rutgers, Bouwman and Jansen.

3. Extent of support to which our emeritus Ministers are entitled.

What is the meaning of the phrase, “in their need,” as it occurs
in the present article? On this question there has been a difference
of opinion for many years. Some say that the expression: “in their
need” stands on par with “proper support,” as spoken of in Article
11, concerning the support allotted to Ministers in active service. Ac-
cording to these, Article 13 provides that our emeritus Ministers or
their dependents, are entitled to full support, whether they are in
need of this support or not.

Others hold that the expression, “in their need,” refers to actual
needs, needs which exist because the parties concerned have no
other means of support.

We are convinced that the latter group is right. We believe that
the correct interpretation of our Church Order demands that we in-
terpret the phrase, “in their needs,” literally, i.e., the Churches con-
cerned are in duty bound to see to it that emejritus Ministers and
their dependents shall not suffer want, but can live honorably and
comfortably.

Three considerations favor this interpretation:

(1) The adverb “honorably” in the phrase points to the fact that
our fathers were anxious that their incapacitated Ministers should
be able to live honorably. Not, that they should be supported by the

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Churches concerned, even if the Minister in question had an income
sufficient for him and his dependents;

(2) The Synod of Dort, 1618-19, adopted in essence Article 13 as
it now reads. But this great Synod merely approved of and restated
what previous Synods had already agreed upon. For example: The
Synod of Dort, 1578, decreed: “. . . dat sij den overighen tijd hares
levens eerlick toebrenghen moghen.” That is to say, “. . . that they
may be able to conclude their lives in an honorable way.” Synod of
Middelburg, 1581; “. . . dat hem soo veel toegheleijt werde, daarop
hij de reste zijns levens eerlick en bequamelick door comen moghe.”
That is: “. . . so much shall be given him, that he may be able to
finish his life honorably and satisfactorily.” Synod of ’s Gravenhage,
1586, gave the following renderings: “. . . eerlijcken in haren nood-
druft versorghet worden.” And this rendering was approved of or
adopted by the great Synod 1618-19. And thus we have it today.
“. . . provide honorably for them in their need.” 1

The renderings given above, basic to what we have today, prompt
us to favor the literal reading of the term “in their need.”

(3) The expression is a translation of the original: “in hunne
nooddruft.” Admittedly this word is all-important for the present
question. According to Van Dale’s dictionary it means: “dringende
behoefte, datgene wat tot onderhoud van het leven noodig is, levens-
behoeften, levensmiddelen.”

Furthermore, common usage of the words “nooddruft” or “nood-
druftig” still refer to actual needs, and not to mere support or cost
of living (cf. Van Dale’s Groot Woordenboek).

Moreover, the etymology of the word “nooddruft” demands that
we favor the literal interpretation of the expression, “in their need.”
What does the origin of the word “nooddruft” reveal? Prof. J. Ver-
coullie in his Beknopt Etymologisch Woordenboek der Nederlandsche
Taal, tells us concerning this word: “het tweede lid is een afleiding
van durven; het geheel— dringende behoefte.” And the word “durven”
stands related, so this same authority says, to “derven,” which ac-
cording to its primary meaning signifies, “ontberen,” “noodig hebben.”

Does this interpretation of Article 13 imply that our emeritus Min-
isters receive gifts of charity? Not at all. They continue to be full-
time ordained workers in God’s Church, though either temporarily or
permanently unable to perform their duties. And even as the Priests
and Levites shared in the tithes and offerings of the people, though
unable to perform their duties by reason of age or sickness, so our
incapacitated Ministers receive their just dues, and not charity.

And yet the Church Order makes a distinction. Article 11, con-
cerning Ministers in active service, speaks of proper support, but Ar-
ticle 13 speaks of provision of needs. Virtually the position of the
Church Order is this: If the amount allowed, during the period of
active service, is sufficient to cover the period of inactivity also, good
and well. But if the salary paid proved to be just enough for the
needs of each year so that the Minister upon emeritation is still in
need of support, then the Church is in duty bound to give this. How
much? Enough to rule out want and distress and to make a decent
living possible.

And if any emeritus Minister should have another source of income
sufficient to make a decent living possible, then the Churches are not
in duty bound to pay such a Minister anything toward his support,

• cf* of synod referred to. See Kerkelijk Handboekje, Rotterdam,

1764, or kindred publications.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

inasmuch as he is no longer actually laboring in the Gospel, and
has the means for an honorable living at his disposal.

Upon which grounds does the Church Order stipulate that emeritus
Ministers shall be honorably provided for in their needs? Ministers
are required to give all their time and thought, and their whole life,
to the Church and its task. The Churches do not allow them to pro-
vide for the future through some money-making side-line. This is
as it should be. But then it also follows upon a principle of common
justice and fairness, that the Churches assure them the necessities of
life. Consequently the Churches have obligated themselves to see to
it that their incapacitated Ministers receive their necessities of life,
also then when their years and strength are spent. To this support
he is also entitled for his dependents who may need this help after
his demise.

Furthermore, I Cor. 9:14, “Even so did the Lord ordain that they
that proclaim the gospel should live by the gospel,” and kindred
passages noted when we discussed Article 11, certainly do not restrict
support to those still healthy and active.

Yet, the Church Order, according to our interpretation, does not
say that the Churches must support their emeritus Ministers if the
sufficiency of life and comfort is already theirs. Why not? It seems
to us that the difference between that which the Scriptural principle
warrants and what the Church Order prescribes is to be explained by
the fact that our fathers did not care to demand their ultimate rights.
In matters which did not violate a principle as such, they
often were big-hearted, and would take a self-denying attitude. For
this they deserve our admiration. Moreover, in keeping with this our
Church Order often displays a remarkably well-balanced judgment.
The provision of Article 13 we deem to be an example of this. They
felt that a difference between active and inactive Ministers was in
order. And so the first class the Church Order entitles to full support,
whatever their personal circumstances, but the inactive by reason
of old age or sickness, it entitles to that which constitutes their ac-
tual needs.

4. Significance of the phrase: “the Church which they have served.”

This expression, as is agreed by all, refers to the Church which

the brother concerned was serving when his emeritation became nec-
essary. Says Prof. Wm. Heyns 1 on this point: “We admit that orig-
inally this meant: the local Church which they served last, and also
that our common fund is out of harmony with that original meaning.”
The original Dutch word is singular, referring to a particular Church.
The Church to which the emeritated Minister belongs, and with which
he remains connected in the capacity of inactive office-bearer, is
therefore charged by the Church Order to see to it that the emeri-
tated Minister and his dependents are properly taken care of.

5. Practical execution of Article 13.

If a Minister finds that he is unable to perform the duties of his
office by reason of advanced age, sickness, or some other dispositions,
he should request his Consistory for emeritation. The Consistory, if
it deems the considerations valid, then presents his request to Classis.
If the Classis finds that emeritation should be given, it so decides.
The decision of Classis, however, being subject to the approval of
Synod, (cf. Acts. 1914.)

1. Heyns: Handbook for Elders and Deacons, 1928, p. 102, 3.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

In case a Consistory finds that its Minister can no longer discharge
his office properly by reason of age, sickness, etc., that body may
take the initiative. The Consistory need not wait for the Minister to
make the first move. The Reformed Churches of Holland adopted
the following rule at their Synod held in 1893: “Emeritation, where
necessary, takes place upon the request of the parties concerned,
(either Minister or Consistory) by action of the Classis, supported
by the Synodical Examiners of the Provincial Synod.”

Neither is it necessary to wait until both parties, the Minister and
the Consistory, can agree on the question of the Minister’s emerita-
tion. In case of disagreement they can simply let Classis decide.

To the common fund mentioned in this article, all the Churches
are expected to contribute a proportionate amount annually. The ex-
act sum needed is estimated by each Synod.

The maintenance of a general fund is no doubt fair and proper.
The first responsibility rests upon the Church concerned. But co-
operation of all the Churches is highly necessary. If no common
fund existed many Churches would be overburdened and much handi-
capped in their work. Moreover, fairness dictates co-operation by all
the Churches. A Minister may serve several Churches strong and
able financially, but at the conclusion of his years of service may ac-
cept a call to a smaller Church. Yet, without co-operation, this smaller
and weaker Church would have to shoulder the full burden of re-
sponsibility.

If no common fund were maintained, Churches would certainly be
inclined to refrain from calling elderly Ministers, who could serve
them acceptably, because of the excessive financial burdens, which
might come after a few years.

However, originally our Church Order did not call for a common
fund. This provision was added to Article 13 by our Synod of 1914.
It would have been better if this revision had not been made. It cre-
ates a dualism in Article 13, inasmuch as the article clearly attributes
responsibility to the Church whose Minister the incapacitated office-
bearer is, and at the same time rules that he shall be paid out of a
common fund. Was this revision perhaps made under the impression
that the phrase, “the Church which they have served” refers to the
sum-total of our Churches? Or was it made because the emeriti
were paid out of a common fund, while the Church they served last
was not 6onsidered at all? At any rate, the revision tends to create
the impression that “the Church” referred to is the denomination.
And yet this certainly is not the case.

We have no objection to a common fund properly organized and
maintained as appears from what we have said above. Even our
mother-Churches in the Netherlands have organized common funds.
But we do believe that Synodical action toward the establishment of
a common fund, without the incorporation of the clause under ques-
tion in Article 13, would have been better. Thus the dualism re-
ferred to would have been avoided and the principle fundamental to
Article 13 could have been fully maintained.

Synod of 1928 decided that when an emeritated Minister desires
to re-enter active service he may not be called until the Consistory
and the Classis that recommended him for emeritation deem that the
reasons for his emeritation do no longer exist. (Art. 137, IX, 1928.)
Is this a proper ruling? An emeritus Minister is a Minister in good
and regular standing. Why should he not be permitted to consider
and accept a call? Would it not be better to leave this whole matter
to the brother concerned, the Church and Consistory calling and the

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Classis of the Church? Sometimes Synods are tempted to make
blanket rules, because of one or two irregular cases. But this is a
dangerous policy, and not to the best interest of our Churches.

(After the major part of this commentary was completed the Synod of
1939 adopted the following reading of Article 13:

“Ministers, who by reason of age, sickness or otherwise, are ren-
dered incapable of performing the duties of their Office, shall never-
theless retain the honor and title of a Minister, and the Church
which they have served shall provide honorably for them (like-
wise for the orphans and widows of Ministers) out of the common
funds of the Churches according to the general ecclesiastical
ordinance in the matter.”

The important differences between this revision of Article 13 and its
previous reading, is the fact that the words, “in their need” have been
deleted.

This revision was made inasmuch as this same Synod approved of a

?lan which divided the Emeritus Fund into two distinct funds, known as
ension Fund and Relief Fund. According to the plan of 1939 all Ministers
in active service are to contribute 3 percent of their salary annually to-
ward the Pension Fund, in return for which all Ministers upon their emeri-
tation, or their dependents, will receive an amount out of the Pension
Fund; equalling two-fifths of the current average salary of the Christian
Reformed ministry. Those who need more than the amount allowed as
pension are to receive additional support out of the Relief Fund.

Cf. Acts of Synod, 1939, pp. 21, 22, and Supplement XH-b, “Rules for
the Pension and Relief Funds of the Christian Reformed Church,”
pp. 227-231.)

ARTICLE XIV.

If any Minister, for the aforesaid or any other reason , is
compelled to discontinue his service for a time, which shall not
take place without the advice of the Consistory, he shall never-
theless at all times be and remain subject to the call of the
congregation.

TEMPORARY RELEASE

Article 14 concerns itself with what we usually call leave-of-
absence. When a Minister seeks and receives temporary release from
the duties of his office, he is said to be on leave-of -absence. ,Hris
term is borrowed from secular life, and although passable it might
be better to speak of temporary exemption from duty, or temporary
release from service, inasmuch as one may be temporarily released
from the execution of the duties of his office, though not at all absent
from his field of labor. However, this objection is not serious, and
we shall use the expression when convenient in the consideration of
srticlG

It may be noted also that Article 14 does not say that the granting
of temporary release from service is permissible. The article pre-
supposes the necessity of such leaves. For that reason we read: “If
any Minister .... is compelled to discontinue his service for a
time . . . .” The main burden of Article 14 is therefore found in its
concluding sentence, which reads: “. . . he shall nevertheless at all
times be and remain subject to the call of the congregation.” From
this it appears that the article would avoid irregularities as to the
relationship between Ministers on leave-of-absence and their
Churches.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

1. Reasons for temporary release.

For which reasons is the taking and granting of leave-of -absence
permissible? Article 14 answers: “. . . . for the aforesaid or any
other reason . . . Doubtless the expression first of all refers back
to Article 13 which speaks of old age, sickness, etc. Sickness, acci-
dents, etc., may be of such a nature that an indefinite discharge from
duty is called for. Then emeritation is in order. But these difficulties
may also be of rather long duration, and yet according to all ap-
pearances, of a temporary and passing nature. In the latter case,
leave-of-absence would be in order rather than emeritation.

There are good reasons to believe that the words “or any other
reason,” were also meant to cover the cases of Ministers who were
compelled to leave their Churches to save their lives in the days of
persecution. It should be noted that Article 14 was in principle al-
ready adopted in 1578, when the Roman persecutions had not yet
spent their force in the Netherlands.

The words: “or any other reason,” make room for any other
weighty consideration of a compelling nature. For instance: in the
past men have received leave-of-absence because they were appointed
on Bible translation committees, or because they were appointed as
delegates to foreign lands for the period of a few weeks or months.

Repeatedly Ministers have received leave-of-absence according to
Article 14 for the purpose of taking post-graduate work at some
theological school. It has been objected that such should not be done
inasmuch as Article 14 speaks of compelling circumstances and that
one who desires to continue his studies is certainly not compelled
to do so. In arguing thus one has the letter of this article in his
favor but no more, for as indicated above, the final sentence of the
article constitutes its core. In other words: the burden of this article
is not that Ministers may not receive leave-of-absence unless they are
forced to do so by circumstances, but that a Minister on leave-of-
absence, “shall nevertheless at all times be and remain subject to
the call of the congregation.” The significance of this provision we
shall discuss forthwith.

Now, to be sure, if a Minister has the inclination and the means
for qualifying himself still further for useful service, and consequent-
ly asks for a leave-of-absence, and if conditions in his congregation
do not forbid his Consistory to grant him his desire, then neither he
nor his Consistory is violating the intent of Article 14 when they
proceed. As long as the motive is worthy, and the condition of the
congregation permits, a leave-of-absence is altogether in order.

Does this article tolerate indefinite leave-of-absence? No. The
article states specifically: “If any Minister is compelled to discontinue
his services for a time. . .” Leave-of-absence should therefore cover
a specific period of time. Indefinite leave-of-absence, not uncommon
in our Churches a few years ago, violates the intent of this article.
Synod of 192$ was doubtlessly correct when it ruled that leave-of-
absence should be given for only a definite period. This does not
mean that the exact length of the leave must always be indicated in
weeks or months or years. This is advisable and should be done if
at all possible. When this appears to be impossible the approximate
length of time should be stipulated. If this approximate period
proves to be too short, for instance in cases of broken health, exten-
sions can be arranged. The purpose of the leave must always be
valid and definitely stated, for our Churches must ever guard the
uniqueness and sacred character of the office.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

If circumstances are such that an indefinite release from active
service is required, Article 13 applies and not Article 14.

2. Significance of advice of the Consistory.

What is the significance of the expression: “which shall not take
place without the advice of the Consistory?” The term advice here
stands on par with approval. If a Consistory advises against a con-
templated leave the Minister is required to stay, unless, of course,
he appeals to a major assembly and the major assembly should deem
that the Consistory acted without sufficient grounds.

The tie which binds a Minister to his Church was established by
both Minister and Church. Consequently no Minister can do as he
sees fit and ignore the opinion of his Consistory. That would be a
grievous violation of rights and would call for disciplinary action.

3. Subject to the call of the congregation.

Article 14 stipulates that a Minister who has received a temporary
release “shall nevertheless at all times be and remain subject to the
call of the congregation.” What does this mean?

That the Minister to whom temporary release from active service
is granted, continues to be Minister of the congregation which grants
him such temporary release or leave-of-absence, and that he con-
tinues to be subject to the calling with which he was bound to that
Church. The Dutch article speaks of, “de beroeping der gemeente.”
The significance of this calling or “beroeping” is clearly set forth in
Article 4. It consists of election, examination, approbation, and ordi-
nation. The calling of a Minister into the sacred office places him
under definite obligations. There is a definite relationship between
him and his Church. He is ever subject to the calling with which he
was called. His promises are ever binding. He has submitted him-
self to the jurisdiction of his Church, etc., etc. Now Article 14 stipu-
lates that this calling, with all its implications, remains in force even
though he has been temporarily excused from the active execution
of the duties of his office.

From the foregoing it follows that at the end of his leave-of-
absence the Minister concerned goes back to work in his Church.
Unless it has been clearly stipulated that at the termination of his
leave he will endeavor to secure a call from another Church and will
await such a call. Usually this understanding exists. Then the Min-
ister forfeits all rights to salary, parsonage, etc., in order that his
Church can call another Minister. There is nothing in this article
which forbids this arrangement. Its advisability depends on the cir-
cumstances involved. But as long as he has not accepted a call to
another Church in the regular way, which includes permanent release
from his present Church, he is and remains subject to the call of
that Church whose inactive Minister he is. He stands under the su-
pervision of the Consistory of that Church, etc.

The concluding sentence of Article 14 must be explained in the
light of preceding articles and of the general principles of Reformed
Church government. In our humble opinion, the article is not at all
hard to understand when this is done. If it be remarked that some
of the renderings of Article 14 in our old Dutch Church Orders speak
of congregations (“subject to the call of the congregations”) and
that the use of the plural favors the interpretation which holds that
Article 14 stipulates that a Minister on leave-of-absence may be
called by any Church at any time while he is on leave, then he would
reply with Dr. Bouwman that the plural is not used in these old

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Church Orders. It is true that our Article 14 of today is essentially
the same as what the Synod of 1578 already adopted, and that there
is a direct connection between these older readings and our present
readings. It is also true that the article of 1578 speaks of “gemeen-
ten” (soo sullense nochtans haar tot alien tijden de beroepinge der
Gemeeten onderwerpen), but it is not true that this word “gemeenten”
is plural.' According to old Dutch usage this word “gemeenten” in
the phrase under consideration is a singular, possessive case.1

Besides, any Minister in good standing in the Christian Reformed
Churches, whether he be on leave-of-absence or not, is always eligible
to a call and must always give serious consideration to each call
coming to him. This is such a self-evident fact that our Church Order
does not even mention it specifically, neither here nor elsewhere.

ARTICLE XV.

No one shall be permitted, neglecting the Ministry of his
Church or being without a fixed change, to preach indiscrimi-
nately without the consent and authority of Synod or C las sis.
Likewise, no one shall be permitted to preach or administer the
Sacraments in another Church without the consent of the Con-
sistory of that Church.

NO PREACHING ANYWHERE WITHOUT AUTHORITY

In Article 3 the Church Order specifies that none shall be permitted
to administer the Word and the Sacraments unless he be lawfully
called. Article 4 attributes the right of calling to the particular
Churches. And Article 7 rules that none shall be called to the min-
istry unless they be stationed in a particular place. (Except they
be sent to do Church extension work.) ,

At the basis of Article 7 and the whole Church Order lies the
church governmental principle which acknowledges each particular
Church to be an authoritative organization, and which holds that only
they have a right to administer the Word and Sacraments who have
been called to the ministry by a particular Church. Reformed Church
polity does not look upon the denomination as being the real Church
and the particular Churches, as being local subdivisions of the larger
body. But Reformed Church polity holds that the particular Churches
are the essential units, and that the denomination is a God-ordained
federation of Churches. Now from these principles our Church Order
in the present article deduces two additional principles. First, none
shall be permitted to preach indiscriminately without the consent of
Synod or Classis. Secondly, none shall be permitted to preach or ad-
minister the Sacraments in another Church without the consent of
the Consistory of that Church.

1. None shall be permitted to preach indiscriminately.

This provision of Article 15 would prevent Ministers from leaving
their pulpits and fields of labor, to preach and work in other fields,

1. cf. Dr. W. L. van Helten, Middennederlandsclie Spraakkuast, p. 367;
Dr. P. L». Rutgers, Acta, 492-96. Ctted by Bouwman: Gereformeerd Xerk-
recht, 1934, II, 480.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

not assigned to them. Shortly after the Reformation, and also at a
later date, some brethren would leave their own pulpits and fields,
at certain intervals or permanently, and begin preaching in other
localities. Perhaps they just wanted a change. Perhaps they cher-
ished just or unjust grievances against the Churches which they
were serving. Perhaps they were moved by the needs of the terri-
tories in which they began to preach. Whatever the motive, good or
bad, the Churches found that this practice was harmful for more
than one reason.

But the article was also and especially meant for men “without a
fixed charge” who roamed from place to place and “preached” wher-
ever they could. We have spoken of this class of workers under
Article 9. Many of these roamers were unworthy because of limited
ability or character. Many made a good impression but were never-
theless undesirable. Yet they forced themselves upon the Churches,
or they began to preach in localities without an organized Church,
entirely upon their own responsibility, instead of seeking a mandate
in the regular way.

Today the phrase, “being without a fixed charge,” refers particu-
larly to Ministers that have been dismissed from their Churches ac-
cording to Article 11, i. e., Ministers who have been barred from the
active execution of their task in their Churches, due to trouble, etc.
These brethren may not go about preaching in various unchurched
communities without consent of Synod or Classis. Furthermore, there
are stranded Ministers, Ministers whose congregations have dwindled
away due to the removal of their members to other regions, because
of constant crop failures or like reasons. These also should not take
matters in their own hands and begin preaching where and when
they see fit. It certainly is laudable when Ministers without fixed
charges are anxious to work and are eager to bring the Gospel to
the unchurched. But work of this type should be under the super-
vision of the Churches. The wisdom and rights of all the Churches
concerned must be fully recognized by Ministers that desire to es-
tablish new Churches.

Some of these roaming preachers of former years defended their
unauthorized practices by saying that their position corresponded
with that of the Apostles and Evangelists of New Testament times.

But the Synod of Dort, 1578, Article 7, already refuted this state-
ment by saying that the offices of the Apostles and Evangelists had
ceased long ago.

The phrase, “to preach indiscriminately,” we judge, is a rather
unhappy translation of the Dutch “hier en daar te gaan prediken.”
To preach indiscriminately is to preach carelessly, without discrimi-
nation, without distinction. The article, of course, refers to preaching
in various localities, particularly Churchlees communities.

2. Consent and authority of Synod or Classis.

Why should the Church Order prescribe authority to Synod or
Classis fn this matter?

Because Church extension work, the organization of new Churches,
is not merely the interest of one Church. Far less is it the interest
and concern of some individual Minister. But it is the interest of
all the Churches concerned. Consequently it is proper that when any
Minister without a field desires to work as Missionary or Church
organizer in any community, that he seek permission from all the
Churches concerned (Classis or Synod) and not just from one Church.

Synod or Classis, the article reads. As a rule Classis can best regu-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

late and supervise this Church organization work. However, if it ap-
pears to be more expedient that Synod give consent and authority, then
such is altogether permissible and proper. Synod is even mentioned
in Article 15.

Let it be noted that this article does not say that Ministers who
are engaged in Church extension work, must do so under the direct
charge and supervision of a major assembly. Every Minister labors
first of all upon the charge of his particular Church and under su-
pervision of its Consistory, (cf. Art. 4, 5) and secondarily and in-
directly he stands under the authority of the major assemblies. Even
Ministers who according to Article 11 are debarred from active serv-
ice in their Churches continue to stand under the supervision of their
Consistories as long as they have not accepted a call to another con-
gregation or have not entered upon a secular field of labor. Article
15 only stipulates that home mission work is not to be undertaken
by any Minister who lacks a field, without authorization by a major
assembly.

Furthermore, Article 15 refers especially to men, “without a fixed
charge.” These individuals often held no official relationship to any
particular Church. That is still the case with stranded Ministers,
Ministers whose Churches have disbanded. In such a case the indi-
vidual concerned may do some mission work under the direct super-
vision of a major assembly, but then only as a temporary emergency
measure, which would cease to operate as soon as the regular rela-
tionships had been established. Only under special circumstances do
the Churches in general begin to perform a task which essentially
belongs to the particular Church. It is well to note in this connection
that our new Home Mission Order, adopted by the Synod of 1936,
and which put our Home Mission or Church Extension work under
direct authority of Synod, very definitely demands that every Home
Missionary be called and charged by a particular Church, with which
Church he stands connected as Minister of the Gospel.

3. No administration of Word and Sacraments without
Consistorial consent.

The primary purpose of the first part of Article 15 is to safeguard
the cause of God against roaming, self-appointed preachers. It puts
this class of men, often without any official ministerial connections
with any particular Church, under the authority of the united
Churches. The primary purpose of the second part of this article
is to safeguard the integrity and rights of the particular Churches.
Without the consent and authority of the Consistory of the particular
Church, no one is allowed to administer the Word or the Sacraments
in its domain or locality.

So for Churchless communities, lying outside of the territory of
any particular Church, those who desire to do mission work must
receive permission from the united Churches. But he who would
preach within the bounds of one of our Churches must seek his con-
sent from the Consistory of the Church concerned.

This provision and safeguard would not be found in our Church
Order if we had the collegiate system of church government. For
according to the collegialistic system the denomination is the Church,
and the particular Churches are looked upon as mere sub-divisions of
the Church. Ministers of collegialistic Churches are Ministers of the
denomination, the super-church, stationed in various sections of the
Church. They can be sent by those in authority within the bounds
of one of their local Churches to preach and administer the Sacra-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ments.1 without consulting the particular Church concerned. The
Churches of a collegiate Church are ruled from the top down, not
from the bottom up.

But we have the Reformed system of church government. Conse-
quently our Church Order always maintains the integrity and au-
thority of the particular Churches.

Now in keeping with the integrity and authority which our system
attributes to the particular Churches, each Church has its own field
or territory. In former years neighboring Churches set up definite
boundary lines. Removal across the boundary line also meant removal
from the Church to the Church of that neighborhood or community.
Boundary lines are still held in honor in the Netherlands. The sys-
tem of allotting certain territories to certain Churches and of main-
taining ecclesiastical boundary lines doubtless has much in its favor.
Without the maintenance of boundary lines the territory of one
Church overlaps that of another. Think of our situation, for instance,
in Grand Rapids, Michigan. There is an overlapping and crisscrossing
of territories there which is confusing. And the same situation ob-
tains for almost every other center with more than one of our
Churches. This does not make for good order. One congregation
often grows too fast for its own good and another sustains losses in
membership which are uncalled for. Very often personal attachment
to a building or a Minister impel our people to remain with a certain
Church although logically they belong elsewhere. This is true not
only for our urban Churches but also for our rural Churches. And
this overcrowxis some Churches and weakens others. It also makes
for an unwholesome spirit of competition. Young people particularly
are tempted to roam from Church to Church, especially for the eve-
ning service. Some seldom attend their own Church for the second
service. The most popular Minister becomes the drawing card for
the crowd.

But we Americans love our liberties, and it is doubtful, now that
we have operated under the present system for so many years,
whether any move to improve our situation would be well received
by the bulk of our membership. However that may be, the system of
well defined territories and certain boundary lines was certainly in
the minds of our fathers when they wrote Article 15 and ruled that
no one should be permitted to preach and to administer the Sacra-
ments in another Church without the consent of the Consistory of
that Church. This does not refer to the administration of Word and
Sacraments in the church building of the congregation concerned.
The fact that each Consistory has full control over its own pulpit, and
that none can preach in the services of a certain congregation with-
out consent of its Consistory, is so self-evident that it needs no ex-
pression in the Church Order. Article 15 goes much further. It rec-
ognizes the rights of a Church over its own territory, and makes it
unlawful for one of our Ministers to preach within the limits of its
territory without consent of the Consistory concerned.

Sometimes it happens that our Ministers preach in Churches of
other denominations. Aside from all other questions as to the ad-
visability of this practice, this preaching for other Churches should
not take place by any of our men without consent of the Consistory
of that place. In case the city or town has more than one of our
Churches the nearest Church or Churches should be asked for this
approval and permission. If at some future time we should get a
new redaction of our Church Order this matter might well be spe-
cifically named in Article 15.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Our Synod of 1904 ruled that a Consistory should not admit to its
pulpits a Minister not of our own denomination except when it is con-
vinced that such a Minister is of sound Reformed confession. (Art.
125, 5.) And still stronger, Synod of 1882 ruled that Ministers who
in doctrine and church government, and with respect to secret socie-
ties, take the position that is held by our Churches, may on occasion
occupy our pulpits (Art. 58). These rulings are at present doubtless
more timely than they were when they were made. They should
not be forgotten or ignored. If they are we may feel ourselves obli-
gated at some future day to accept even more drastic rules. The
Reformed Churches of the Netherlands have found it advisable to ap-
point a Synodical Committee, without the approval of which no Min-
ister belonging to another denomination is permitted to preach in
said Churches.

Synod of 1904 also ruled that a Candidate as to his membership is
under the supervision of the Consistory of the Church to which he
belongs, but that with regard to his labors as a Candidate he is sub-
ject to the supervision of the Classis in whose district he labors.
(Art. 126.) This really should be corrected to conclude as follows:
. . . . of the Classis in whose district he has his membership, whether
he labors within the boundaries of this particular Classis or not.”
Of course, he is subject to the supervision of the local Church where
he labors temporarily, and if that Church detects something wrong
in doctrine or life, the Consistory of that Church should notify, as a
last resort, his Classis, which Classis would then have the right to
revoke his license to exhort, and his candidature for the Ministry.

ARTICLE XVI.

The office of the Minister is to continue in prayer and in the
ministry of the Word , to dispense the Sacraments, to watch
over his brethren , the Elders and Deacons, as well as the Con-
gregation, and finally, with the Elders, to exercise church dis-
cipline and to see to it that everything is done decently and in
good order.

THE DUTIES OF MINISTERS.

It should be noted that Article 16 speaks of the duty, work or task
of the Minister, and not of the office of the ministry as such. The
word office as used in our Church Order sometimes refers to the offi-
cial, authoritative position of the office-bearers in the Church of
Christ, and sometimes to the duties of the office, and not to the office
itself. Article 35 even speaks of “the office of the president” of an
ecclesiastical gathering, when it clearly refers to the work of the
president. Now the content of Article 16 clearly indicates that it has
reference to the work which a Minister should do and not to his offi-
cial position.

1. The task of the Ministers as Ministers.

The work of the ministry as mentioned in this article is in the
main three-fold. First: the service of the Word, consisting of preach-
ing and teaching with appropriate prayers. Secondly: the service of
the Sacraments, as seals upon the Word. Thirdly: the service of

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

• 75

supervision. Strictly speaking the service of supervision does not be-
long to the task of the ministry, i.e., to the prophetic office in Christ’s
Church, but to the task of the Eldership, or the ruling office in
Christ’s Church. But the Ministers do not only represent Christ as
to His prophetic office, but also as to His ruling or pastoral office
(cf. Eph. 4:11). Consequently Article 16 sneaks of supervision and
discipline and the maintenance of good order, though these clearly
belong to the domain of the Elders.

What does the phrase, “to continue in prayer and in the ministry
of the Word” teach us? This phrase refers to congregational wor-
ship, of which two elements are mentioned, namely, prayer and
preaching. It teaches us:

(1' That the Word of God, God’s revelation of Himself as Creator
and Saviour and all that it implies, must be preached. Mere lectures
and discourses, though very good and altogether in place elsewhere,
may never supplant the Word of God in the hour of Worship.

This point capnot be stressed too strongly in our day. Addresses
on secular subjects may not take the place of sermons based on God’s
own Word. Neither should we be satisfied if the Ministers should de-
liver excellent religious addresses. Topical sermons are very often
little more than religious discourses, in which the preacher’s opinion
looms up large. What we should demand without wavering, is exposi-
tion and application of God’s own Word. Religious discourses are
often much more popular with the crowd than regular sermons. But
in the interest of the spiritual welfare of our members and the future
of our Churches we should continue to present expository sermons.
Of course this does not mean that our sermons should not be prac-
tical. A good sermon expounds and applies God’s special revelation.

(2) That inasmuch as man is completely dependent upon God and
owes Him full allegiance, prayer should constitute an important part
in every service.

(3) That he who fills this office is a Minister. That is to say, he
is a servant. But not of the people. Of the Word of God and of God
standing back of His Word.

(4) That this service of the Word must continue without interrup-
tion. Ministers must preach the Word with due regularity.

It is worthy of note that this article does not mention the cate-
chizing of children and young people, family visitation, sick-visiting,
and the solemnization of marriages. None should infer from the fact
that these matters are not specifically mentioned here, that they do
not belong to the duties of the ministry. No one who might be in-
clined to defend this position could legitimately and successfully ap-
peal to Article 16 of the Church Order. For this article does not mean
to give an exhaustive enumeration of all ministerial duties; it merely
indicates the essential responsibilities of the ministry. As both Jansen
and Bouwman state, Article 16 is not limitative in character, but
rather prescriptive.

As to catechism work, this certainly belongs to the Minister’s field
of operation. The teaching of a catechism class is essentially admin-
istration of the Word, just as preaching is. Only, catechism teaching
is a specialized form of the administration of the Word, adapted to
the needs of the youth. Its purpose is the indoctrination of covenant
children so that they may, by the grace of God, confess Christ heart-
ily, and serve Him loyally and correctly as well informed believers.
This work belongs in the first place to those Elders who are called
to labor in the Word, i.e., to the Ministers.

As to home visitation work and sick-visiting, in this work the Min-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ister brings the Word of God, not publicly as at congregational wor-
ship, but privately. Not that only, for in the work of home visitation
and sick calling the Minister goes also in his capacity as pastor, i.e.,
as Elder. It may be argued that the work under discussion is largely
supervisory, and that therefore the overseers, that is the Elders,
should do this work. With this we agree. But Ministers have a share
in the Elders’ work, and as such are certainly called upon to perform
this work as much as their time will permit. Such is also for their
own good as Ministers. It helps them to know the needs of their
people.

Regarding the solemnization of marriages, the Ministers of our
Churches really occupy a two-fold position at these ceremonies. Ac-
cording to the laws of our states any regularly ordained Minister
has the right to unite in marriage those who have been properly li-
censed to marry. When a Minister performs a marriage ceremony
he is acting for the state and insofar as a state official. But the
Church of Christ also has a great interest in the marriages contracted
by its young people. Consequently, our Churches have an official form
for the solemnization of marriage, and Article 70 of the Church Order
states that it is proper that the matrimonial state be confirmed in
the presence of Christ’s Church and stipulates that Consistories shall
attend to this. Now when the marriage takes place in the presence
of the congregation, at a service previously announced and under the
supervision of the Consistory, then the Minister not only acts for the
state, but also for the Church in his capacity as Minister of the Gos-
pel. This is therefore also very definitely ministerial work.

Why may only lawfully ordained Ministers officiate at the service
of the Word and of the Sacraments? Because the Scriptures so teach.
To such as had been ordained to office Christ committed the charge
of Matt. 28:19, “Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the na-
tions, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.”

In the Epistles those are constantly told to preach the Word, who
had been previously ordained to office. We read of no baptisms but
by such as were in the office of the ministry in some form or other.

Should men who are not in office and who in some instances do
not belong to any Church anywhere, be permitted to preach the Word
in our Churches? No, this would be decidedly against our rules of
agreement, the Church Order.

Does it make any material difference whether such takes place by
permission of the Consistory some week-day evening, or under the
auspices of the Consistory during the hour of worship on Sunday?
No, the one as well as the other is against the rule and against the
best interest of our Churches.

2. The task of Ministers as overseers.

What precedes refers to the prophetic aspect of the ministerial
office. As noted, the ministerial office also partakes of the task of
the Pastors, ghepherds, Overseers, or Elders. All these names apply
to the Elders’ office. We now come to that work of Ministers which
is theirs in their capacity as Elders. The work of Elders will come
up for consideration in Article 23. Yet a few words regarding pas-
toral work as it applies particularly to the Ministers will not be amiss.

First of all then Ministers must watch over the confession and lives
of their fellow office-bearers, the Elders and Deacons. They must en-
courage, instruct or admonish them faithfully. This same oversight

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

must likewise be exercised over the whole flock. But pertaining to
their fellow office-bearers it is specialized.

The pastoral work of a Minister is very difficult, but also very im-
portant. The Minister that fails to perform this phase of his pastoral
work is inefficient at best. It requires true piety, love, patience, self-
denial, tact, fearlessness, and certainly a thorough knowledge of Holy
Writ and an understanding of human nature as affected by sin in
both regenerate and unregenerate, in old as well as in young.

Secondly, the pastoral work of a Minister includes the exercise of
church discipline. The expression here refers to church discipline in
a narrower sense, i.e., excommunication and the official admonition
which precedes it. Church discipline in the broader sense includes all
protective and corrective pastoral work. Of discipline in this nar-
rower sense, the Church Order speaks in detail in Articles 71-80.

Thirdly, the Minister must “see to it that everything is done de-
cently and in good order.” In this phrase the Church Order specifies
particularly what is clearly implied in the general task of an over-
seer. It refers, no doubt, to the government of the Church in general,
such as strict honesty, and the elimination of arbitrariness and par-
tiality in the exercise of church discipline, and the promotion of good
conduct at church gatherings.

If anywhere, then surely due order must be observed in the Church
of God. And all things should be done decently, or honorably. That
is, all things should be done in such a way that they will reflect cred-
itably upon the Church, and will enhance the honor of Christ, the
Head of the Church.

What are some of the things Ministers are expected to counteract
and forbid? Harshness, wilfulness, partiality, impatience and insin-
cerity in matters of discipline. Angry words, domineering, election-
eering, clique-spirit, etc., at church gatherings.

3. The matter of assistants.

There are in our denomination those who perform work which is
really ministerial in character. There are first of all those, though
not ordained to the ministry, who nevertheless at times take the lead
in congregational worship. We call them exhorters. The Dutch
speak of “oefenaars.” At times when the Church of Christ experi-
enced a great dearth of regular preachers these exhorters have ren-
dered invaluable services. Exhorters hold no office, though often they
are or have been Elders. They are men who, in the providence of God,
have special gifts for exhortation, a thorough knowledge of the
Bible and our Reformed confession, and ability to compose and speak.

As will be realized the regular seminary students of the middler
and senior years at our seminary at Grand Rapids form a very spe-
cial class of exhorters for whom special rules have been adopted.

The Reformed Churches of the Netherlands adopted a few brief
rules regarding the appointment of exhorters. They are in substance
as follows:

“The request to examine a brother in order to grant him permission
to exhort shall always proceed from the Church which desires his
services as exhorter. Said request shall be addressed to the Classis
to which this Church belongs. This Classis shall have the right to
extend the privilege of exhorting to the brother for whom the request
is made, not only for the Church making the request, but also, if it
so desires, for all the Churches of the Classis, but not for the
Churches outside of the Classis. If a Church belonging to another
Classis should desire the services of the same brother, then the Classis

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

of that Church shall judge if and how said brother shall be re-exam-
ined by it. But in no case shall he be permitted to exhort in any
Church unless its Classis has first granted him permission” (Synod
of ’s Gravenhage, 1914, Art. 109). A bit more remains to be said
regarding these ministerial helpers when we discuss Article 20.

A second class of assistants to the Ministers are the so-called
“readers.” Shortly after the Reformation many Churches had no
regular Ministers. To assist needy Churches somewhat, men were
appointed and sent to read sermons and to lead various groups of
believers in public worship. As time progressed and Ministers be-
came available these services became less necessary. Readers are
seldom sent out by our Churches. Our Detroit Church, however, has
often delegated one of its members, usually an Elder, to read a ser-
mon for a group of believers in Windsor, Canada. Consistories still
appoint readers, but as a rule only to read sermons at the regular
Sunday services whilst the Minister is absent from his pulpit or the
Church is vacant. Usually all Elders who have sufficient ability for
this work are appointed to take their turn at “reading services.”
Churches within easy reach of emeritus Ministers, theological profes-
sors, theological students, etc., seldom have “reading services.”

Readers need not necessarily be Consistory members. If none of
the Elders or Deacons have a suitable voice for reading or ability to
read well in public, some other brother in the Church may be ap-
pointed.

Readers are not allowed to bring their own message, nor to alter
that which they read essentially. They act as assistants to the Min-
ister, and as such, should read what the Minister himself has written,
or what some other trustworthy Reformed Minister has written. The
Consistory should know what is being read at reading services, and
no book of sermons should be used which has not been approved of
by the Consistory. It is well for the reader to announce the author
of the sermon he is to read. Many readers will prefer to use one of
the approved prayers for the services which they must lead, rather
than using their own words. These prayers may be found in the
Psalter Hymnal.

Another class of assistants to our Ministers are our non-ministerial
Catechism teachers. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
the Churches in the Netherlands often appointed men not serving in
the Consistory to act as sick-visitors and catechism teachers. This
practice was common in the large city Churches. These catechism
teachers and sick-visitors were not appointed before their knowledge,
faithfulness, doctrinal purity and piety had been investigated. Only
those who proved worthy were appointed. As a rule it is best to
appoint Consistory members as catechism teachers. Then the Con-
sistory may be sure that it is being served by consecrated trustworthy
men. But in some Churches this may be impossible. Then let the
Consistory appoint others well qualified for this work. But let great
care be exercised in the appointment of these assistants in the min-
isterial work. No one should be appointed unless the Consistory is
convinced that he is doctrinally well-informed and sound. All lesson
books, etc., should be selected by the Consistory, and a definite sys-
tem of supervision should be devised.

Another large group of members constantly doing ministerial work
in our Churches are our Sunday School teachers. Sunday Schools are
found in most of our Churches. The influence of our Sunday School
should not be underestimated. It is therefore very advisable that the
Consistories appoint teachers directly, and not from a list suggested

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

by the Sunday School teachers’ meetings. And far less should the
teachers’ meetings select and appoint provisionally, and then ask the
Consistory for its approval. The Sunday School is an influential force
and so it is very important who the teachers are. Only those who
are well-informed, doctrinally sound, and in full unquestioned sym-
pathy with our distinctive position as a Christian Reformed denomi-
nation, should be permitted to teach our youth the year around, and
very often year after year. In the appointment of Sunday School
teachers the Consistory should therefore be altogether free.

The superintendent and his assistant should both be Consistory
members, preferably Elders, so that there may be a very close contact
between the Consistory and the Sunday School. Let them be ap-
pointed annually. It might be a good plan to appoint the teachers
annually, so that inferior and undesirable teachers might be elimi-
nated the easier. Never should the Sunday School teachers meeting
carry on its work independently. There should be close harmony be-
tween the Consistory and the men and women that have been ap-
pointed to instruct the youth of our Church. It goes without saying
that the Consistory should always decide which lesson material the
School is to follow, which ages are to be taught, etc.

ARTICLE XVII.

Among the Ministers of the Word equality shall be main-
tained with respect to the duties of their office and also in other
matters as far as possible according to the judgment of the
Consistory, and if necessary, of the Classis; which equality shall
also be maintained in the case of the Elders and the Deacons.

EQUALITY OF OFFICE-BEARERS

Article 17 puts all hierarchical tendencies in our Churches under
the ban. Hierarchical Churches are governed by various officers, vary-
ing in rank and authority. The most perfect hierarchical system has
been developed by the Church of Rome with the Bishop of Rome, the
Pope, at its head. The disciples of Jesus already showed hierarchical
tendencies when they “disputed one with the other on the way, who
was the greatest.” But Jesus told them, “If any man would be first,
he shall be last of all, and servant of all” (Mark 9:34,35). At an-
other occasion Jesus admonished them: “But be not ye called Rabbi;
for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren” (Matt. 23:8).

1. Equality of office-bearers as stipulated in Article 17.

Equality amongst Ministers is stipulated in Article 17, although
the principle is applied with equal force to the Elders and Deacons,
as the conclusion of the article also clearly states.

The article refers to the relationship and duties of office-bearers to-
ward their fellow office-bearers within the congregation which they
are serving. That is to say Article 17 does not say that equality must
be maintained amongst the Ministers, Elders, and Deacons of various
Churches, but of the local Church to which they happen to belong,
and in which they are serving together.

The principle of equality also applies beyond the confines of the
local Church, but Article 17 does not concern itself with this phase

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

of the question. Article 41, for example, clearly posits the principle
of equality of office-bearers beyond the limits of the local congre-
gation.

The fact that the article speaks of Ministers (plural), might lead
some to think that equality at denominational meetings and in de-
nominational interests is meant. However, let us remember that in
Holland, where our Church Order originated, many Churches have
more than one Minister. In the larger cities of Holland the Reformed
believers are organized into one large Church, having one Consistory,
but several Ministers, and several church buildings perhaps. We have
not followed this system but have consistently organized separate
Churches as the need required. Consequently with us each Church
has but one Minister and but one building. To this rule we have had
an occasional exception. So, for instance, the Churches of Midland
Park, New Jersey, and Denver, Colorado, each had two Ministers for
a number of years. More recently, the Fourth Church of Chicago
called a second Minister. (There are a few more Churches which
really have more than one Minister. Most of our missionaries, for
instance, are called by some local Church. They are officially con-
nected with the calling Church, but in actuality we seldom regard
them as such, and seldom are they accorded the privileges to which
they have a right as Ministers of their Church.)

It is hardly necessary to say that Article 17 refers to official
duties and privileges. When a Church has more than one Minister
it can not be expected that they will be alike in all respects. One
may be more able than the other. One may labor more zealously
than another. One Minister may show greater sympathy and tact-
fulness than another. It is but natural that one is held in higher
esteem than another, and that one is called to work of a greater re-
sponsibility and another not. Consequently this article stipulates
that “equality shall be maintained with respect to the duties of their
offices.” The bold-face words refer to preaching, administration of
the Sacraments, catechizing, presiding at Consistory meetings, etc. In
the performance of these duties equality shall be maintained. Thus
the Church Order rules out the possibility of one Minister assuming
the role of superintendent or dictator over others. Assistant Pastors,
working as subordinates under other Ministers, are unknown in our
Churches.

Which “other matters” does this article refer to? To such matters
as maintenance, esteem for the office held, mode of address, etc. Re-
garding Ministers and their salaries, no personal favoritism should
ever be tolerated. Each Minister of a given local Church must be
honorably supported. This does not mean that equal amounts should
be paid to all. The Minister with a large family will need more than
one with a small family, etc. But all should be dealt with, with equal
fairness.

2. Reasons for equality.

We have neither example nor commandment in Holy Writ which
would support inequality. True, the Apostles did exercise a certain
authority over the Ministers, Elders, and Deacons, and they did have
privileges and duties wanting to the office-bearers in the local
Churches. But nowhere do we read of Elders and Deacons being ele-
vated in authority and honor above other Elders and Deacons. Nor
of one Minister having the official preeminence above other Ministers.

Christ is the one head of His Church. All office-bearers are but
prophets, priests, and kings under Him, acting with equal authority

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

and equal rights, even as also all the Apostles stood on par as far
as their duties and rights were concerned. It is true that Peter in
many respects was the foremost of the disciples. But this preemi-
nence of Peter was not preeminence of authority, as Rome holds, but
merely a preeminence of ability and esteem.

The Synod of 1581, the very Synod which incorporated the article
under discussion into our Church Order, received overtures from
more than one quarter to appoint inspectors or superintendents. But
the Synod decided not to do so inasmuch as this step would be “on-
noodich ende zorghelick,” i.e., “unnecessary and not without danger.”
Unnecessary inasmuch as the various Classes and Particular Synods
were well able to supervise the Churches. And not without danger,
inasmuch as it tended to elevate one office-bearer above another as
to authority exercised. The Churches had suffered too much under a
corrupt hierarchical Church to venture again in the direction of hier-
archism. These overtures for superintendents may have occasioned
the adoption of Article 17, which provides for equality amongst office-
bearers.

It is generally admitted that there are other practical considera-
tions which make it highly desirable that equality be maintained. In-
equality easily produces wilfulness, “boss-ism”, and abuse. And these
are never more out of place and obnoxious than in the Church of
Christ. Inequality also tends to promote jealousy and an unholy
rivalry to the damage of the Church and the dishonor of God.

3. The conditional clause: as far as possible.

But it is also added, “as far as possible.” Our Church Order is
not a rigid book of law. It means to regulate church life according
to God’s Word and the best interest of the Churches. Now in certain
matters ironclad rigidity might work severe damage and defeat the
very purpose of the rule concerned, namely, the honor of God and the
welfare of Christ’s Church. And so we find the modifying phrase, “as
far as possible,” attached to this rule. This is altogether proper.
For example: Supposing a certain Church has more than one Min-
ister. Because of advanced age one of them finds it extremely hard
to preach regularly and every Sunday, but pastoral work he is still
able to perform with comparative ease. Why should not the Con-
sistory in such a case release said Minister in part of his share in
conducting congregational worship, and add to his task as sick-visi-
tor ? Or supposing a man has excellent qualification for the eldership,
but reading a sermon in public is extremely hard for him, and the
Church is not edified when he is forced to take his turn. Why should
not the Consistory excuse him from this extra task ?

And so there may be numerous conditions which demand that the
division of labor be somewhat unequal, without an actual infringe-
ment upon the principle of equality of office-bearers in God’s Church.
As soon as we would begin to make unnecessary and arbitrary dif-
ferences, the principle of equality would be violated. The exception
does not do so.

Who decides as to each office-bearer’s share in the common task?
The Consistory, inasmuch as this is the governing body in each
Church. This matter is therefore not left to individuals or groups of
individuals, but the Consistory as a body judges and determines.

If in any case the Consistory cannot decide, or if the party or
parties concerned are dissatisfied with the ruling of the Consistory,
then as in all other cases, the matter can be brought for decision to
Classis.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY
ARTICLE XVIII.

The office of the Professors of Theology is to expound, the
Holy Scripture and to -vindicate sound doctrine against heresies
and errors.

THE TASK OF THEOLOGICAL PROFESSORS

The word office in Article 18 refers to work, task, duties. What we
have said concerning the use of the word office under Article 16 is
true also for the present article.

Our Dutch redaction of the Church Order (1914) reads as follows:
“Het ambt der Doctoren of Professoren in de Theologie is, de Heilige
Schriftuur uit te leggen, en de zuivere leer tegen de ketterijen en
dolingen voor te staan.” It will be noted that our English transla-
tion of this official Dutch text has dropped the term “Doctoren,” i.e.,
Ddctors. This translation was approved by Synod of 1920 so that
we now have a slight variation between the official Dutch and the
official English text of Article 18. Happily, the matter is not at all
serious. Practically it makes very little difference whether or not
this historical reading was maintained. On the other hand, variations
in two official texts of the Church Order should not occur.

1. The historical background of Article 18.

Article 18 clearly refers to our Professors of Theology. It states
very briefly what the brethren who teach at our Seminary must do.
In other words, this article does not seek to control and regulate the
work of teachers of theology in general, but it means to indicate the
task of those who have been appointed for this work by our own
churches.

Historically this article really goes back as far as Calvin. Calvin
held that it was the duty of those that had been appointed to teach
theology to expound the Bible and to defend the true interpretation
and doctrine of the Bible over against those that are in error. He
even favored the thought that teachers of theology should constitute
a separate office, though it should also be said that Calvin saw a very
close relation between “Pastors and Teachers.” Says he: “But all
these are embraced in the pastoral office” (cf. Institutes, Book IV,
Chapter III, 4).

The first Synod of Holland (or Convent of Wezel, 1568) followed
Calvin. Its description of the task of “Doctors,” (the term then used
from the Latin doctor meaning teacher), agrees with that of Calvin.
This Convention, like he, regarded these Doctors as ecclesiastical
office-bearers next to the Ministers. However, as Jansen points out,
the next three Synods of Holland, 1571, 1574, 1578, are all silent as
to the office of the Doctors of Theology. This the author named ex-
plains from the fact that by this time the protestant State had or-
ganized schools at which theology was taught and at which Minis-
ers were trained. The Synods of 1581, 1586, 1618-’19 again include
the office in their Church Orders, but clearly refer not to an ecclesi-
astical office in its strict sense, but rather to teachers of theology
at the various public universities whose work the Churches were thus
endeavoring to control. In the Church Order of Dort (l^lS-’^), the
original of our own Church Order (1914), the expression, “Doctor
or Teacher of Theology”, is therefore at best a semi-ecclesiastical one.
The professors to which it refers were not even ordained, unless those
appointed happened to be Ministers previous to their appointment

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 83

(cf. in this connection what we find even in our own Church Order,
Art. 4).

Now, in our redaction of the Church Order (1914), due to radically
different conditions, Article 18 was made to apply to the professors
of theology at our own seminary.

2. The office of our professors of theology a specialized form of the
ministerial office.

Is the office of our professors of theology a specialized form of
the ministerial office? Yes, for note: Christ was annointed to a three-
fold office, namely, prophet, priest, and king. In harmony with this
fact Christ’s representatives for the O. T. Church were three in kind:
prophets, priests, and kings. Likewise, in harmony with Christ’s
three-fold office the N. T. Church offices are three in number: Min-
isters, Deacons, and Elders, representing Christ respectively as our
great Prophet, our merciful High Priest, and our eternal King.

This divine plan simply leaves no room for a fourth office. Neither,
indeed, does the work of professors of theology demand that we con-
sider theirs a separate office. In fact, the work of professors of the-
ology is identical with the work of all Ministers, only, the work of
the professor is specialized. But this does not alter the fact that our
seminary professors are actually Ministers of the Gospel.

3. Why the expounding of the Scriptures is stressed in this article.

Theology is Based on Scripture. It is the one source of knowledge
and the one standard of truth for the science of theology. Neither
man’s experience and contemplation, nor general revelation can con-
stitute the true source for our theological knowledge. Only through
the Bible do we learn to know God correctly. It is God’s special in-
fallible revelation of Himself. And he who makes this universe, God's
general revelation, or man’s experience, his object for the study of
God is sure to err, for sin has marred God’s general revelation, and
the natural man is spiritually dead so that his understanding of spir-
itual things is blurred at best, and he cannot know God as He is.
And even after regenerating grace is ours, then yet it can not be
said that the true knowledge of naradise has been fully restored to
us. And so special revelation, the Holy Scriptures, is indispensable
to us.

But these Holy Scriptures must be expounded, explained. The
deep things of God are revealed to us in human language. Moreover,
they are revealed to us in the language of the dav in which the
various parts of the Bible were written, a language belonging to a
people differing radically from us in habits and ways of living.

Moreover, many profound truths are revealed to us repeatedly in
Holy Writ, both in Old and New Testaments. Not that we find mean-
ingless repetition in Holy Writ. Far from it, for the profound truths
of God, the cardinal truths of Christianity revealed to us in the
Bible, are not simple in their significance, but very often complex.
They are somewhat like a beautiful valley landscape which may be
viewed from many points, and which at each new point reveals new
beauty. The sum total of the beauty of that valley simply cannot be
seen from one hilltop. So, for instance, the significance of the truth
of God’s absolute sovereignty is not exhausted in one verse or even
one chapter of Holy Writ. The significance of that great truth for
God Himself is spoken of in one place; as to its significance for the
world of sin, in another; as to its significance for God’s children in

84 THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

still another; and as to its cosmic, universal significance, in still an-
other, etc.

Now, our professors are called to expound God’s Word. They must
endeavor to translate correctly; to establish the historical and psy-
chological setting; to determine the logical thought process; to bring
together all that the Scriptures reveal concerning a particular truth,
so that the true significance of the several parts may be understood,
and so that the full significance of the sum total may appear.

What qualifications then are required in a good expounder of Holy
Writ? Several. He should have at least a good working knowledge
of Hebrew and Greek. He should know the history, customs, institu-
tions, literary modes of expression, bent of mind or psychological
make-up of Bible peoples. He should have ability to think logically.
He should, of course, have a thorough knowledge of the whole Bible.
And above all, he should have a sanctified heart and mind. For un-
less one believes in the supernatural character of Holy Writ, unless
one has the indwelling light of the Holy Spirit, unless one has faith,
love, and devotion, one will never sense the true significance of Holy
Writ, no matter how bright one’s intellect or how thorough one’s
factual knowledge may be.

4. To which heresies and errors does the Church Order here refer?

By heresies we mean false religions. And under the heading of
false religions we place first of all Judaism, Mohammedanism, and
all pagan religions. But under this heading we also place Neo-
paganism (Unitarianism, Modernism, Liberalism), Russellism, Chris-
tian Science, Theosophism, Lodgeism, etc. These are all perversions
of true Christianity and constitute a constant and very dangerous
anti-Christian 'force.

By errors the Church Order means to indicate digressive move-
ments and doctrines within the pale of the Christian Church. Errors
in this sense are impure and wrong conceptions of the truth of God,
which weaken the Church and dishonor God, but which do not deny
the essence of the central truth of Christianity, namely, sin and re-
demption through Christ. Under this heading we find Roman Catho-
licism, Anabaptism, Methodism, etc. Or, to put it differently, all
tenets which deny: Infant Baptism, the Covenant of Grace, Total
Depravity, Election, Perseverance of Saints, etc., etc.

When and where should our professors vindicate sound doctrine
against heresies and errors? First of all in the class-room and be-
fore their students. This is so self-evident that we shall not stop to
discuss. But Art. 18 also implies that our professors must contend
for the faith and against heresy and error outside of the classroom,
i.e., in the Churches from the pulpits; through lectures, church
papers, books, pamphlets, etc. There is a crying need for leadership
of this kind. The very future of our churches and the maintenance of
true Christianity and of our Calvinistic conceptions amongst us make
it imperative!

Regarding the appointment of theological professors the decisions
of Synod, 1930 are of note. They are as follows:

“1. When a theological professor is to be appointed, Curatorium
shall present a nomination to Synod. The nominees shall preferably
be ordained men that have had some experience in the ministry of the
Word. The nomination shall not be made until a conference has been
held with the Theological Faculty. It must be made in time so that it
may appear in our church papers at least twice before Synod meets.
To this end the Executive Committee of the Curatorium shall prepare

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

a proposal in time for the meeting of the full Curatorium in May.
When Curatorium convenes, the first duty shall be the making of the
nomination and its publication. In order to lengthen the time for pos-
sible objections to reach Synod, the election shall take place at Synod
as late as possible, and certainly not before the twentieth of June.

2. As in the past, a professor will be appointed for a term of two
years; in case of reappointment, this will be for a term of six years;
if again reappointed at the completion of his second term, he will be
appointed indefinitely.” (Synod, 1930, Art. 23, pp. 20, 21)

Previous to this the Synod of 1924 had already decided as follows:
“It shall be the rule to appoint only men who have prepared them-
selves in a special way for the branch which they will have to teach.
In case one or more years of special preparation are necessary, Synod
shall appoint such a person with the understanding that he will re-
sume his duties after one or two years.” (Synod, 1924, Art. 26, p. 21)
It should not be forgotten that Synodical decisions of this kind are
no laws of the Medes and Persians. It is well to have some general
understanding as to the mode of procedure to be followed in matters
of this kind. However, time and circumstances do not always permit
rigid adherence to general decisions. If necessary the rules just
quoted may be suspended. Each Synod must in the last analysis use
its own judgment.

ARTICLE XIX

The Churches shall exert themselves , as far as necessary ,
that there may be students supported by them to be trained
for the Ministry of the Word.

SUPPORTING STUDENTS FOR THE MINISTRY

The material of Article 19 follows logically upon that of Article 18.
The previous article has indicated the task of professors of theology,
the present article makes provision for an adequate number of
students.

1. The purpose of Article 19.

Without the regular ministry of the Word our Churches cannot be
expected to flourish. Shepherdless Churches are Churches abnormally
situated. God has so constituted our spiritual life for the Church
militant, that constant care and nourishment are necessary. Conse-
quently Ministers of the Gospel must ever be available.

Now, the first requirement for the ministry is no doubt that one
have true piety and whole-hearted consecration. Next we would men-
tion certain natural qualifications and abilities without which one can-
not labor effectively in this sacred work. But besides all this one must
have acquired a generous knowledge of God’s Word and of theology in
general before he can work effectively as a Minister.

But to go to school year after year takes a great deal of money.
And so it has often happened that but few young men studied for the
ministry, inasmuch as but few could afford to go to school. At the
same time many young men of good ability and splendid qualifications
and with an earnest desire to serve God in the Ministry, were anxious

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

and ready to go. All of which simply means that many Churches
would be without ministerial pastors year after year, while some of
the best qualified young men were not available to the Churches be-
cause they could not afford to go to school to prepare themselves.

And so to assure the Churches of an adequate supply of well-quali-
fied Ministers, the Church Order provides that ‘‘The Churches shall
exert themselves, as far as necessary, that there may be students
supported by them to be trained for the Ministry of the Word.”

The first regular Synod of the Churches of Holland (Emden, 1571)
already provided that several students should be supported for the
ministry just as soon as the Churches, then yet dispersed in England
and Germany by reason of the persecution, should have been restored
in the homeland. Already the year before Mamix van St. Aldegonde
had written to the refugee Churches in England concerning this mat-
ter. He wrote concerning a “crying need for students,” and urges the
Churches to begin the sunnort of needy students as soon as possible.

At first Holland had no theological schools of its own. Those that
studied for the ministry would go to Wittenburg, Geneva, Heidelberg,
Zurich, or Basel. Others received some training from well-qualified
Ministers. Eventually, however, the University of Leyden was or-
ganized, and this became the seat of learning which trained many men
for the ministry. As conditions became more settled other schools
were added. More than one Synod of that period dealt with the mat-
ter of securing suitable and sufficient candidates for the ministry. But
Article 19, as it read in those days, did not stipulate that the Churches
had to support an adequate number of students for the ministry, but
merely that the Churches should see to it that there would be a suffi-
cient number of students for the ministry, which students were to
receive aid from the government upon recommendation of the
Churches. When Protestantism in the Netherlands became victorious
many Roman Church lands and funds fell to the government. Out of
this fund of Roman Church properties the government would pay
aged Ministers, needy students, etc. (Let us remember that there was
a very close connection between Church and State in these early days.)
Until very recently our Student Funds were commonly known as E. P.
B. Funds. This designation goes back to this period. Needy students
were said to receive support ex bonis publicis, a Latin phrase meaning
“out of 'the public goods,” the public goods being the former Roman
Church properties referred to above.

2. How our Christian Reformed Churches have carried out the pro-
vision of Article 19.

At first there was one common fund under the administration and
control of Synod. This was when our Christian Reformed Churches
were less numerous than now. But already in 1888 Synod decided that
each Classis should have its own Student Fund. Thus it has been ever
since. Every Classis has its own Student Fund and has full control
over it.

The first responsibility, let it be noted, regarding this matter, the
Church Order clearly places at the door of the individual Churches.
When this article was first formulated and adopted individual Church-
es would sometimes actually send desirable young men from their own
midst to school with the understanding that they serve such sending
Churches upon completion of their course. But our Churches for
practical reasons deemed it better to co-operate and to carry out the
provisions of this article through their classical organizations.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

3. Why the phrase “as far as necessary” is included in this article.

The purpose of Article 19 is not to help needy students, but rather

to help the Churches. Article 19 is a provision against a dangerous
and detrimental dearth of Ministers. If, therefore, at any given
time there is no scarcity of Ministers, the Churches need not exert
themselves in this respect.

This is, no doubt, a wise inclusion. And yet we should be careful
not to interpret this proviso too mechanically. For should we merely
aim to supply the existing demand for Ministers in Churches already
established? We should have a larger outlook and, if financial con-
ditions at all permit, we should always look for young men whom God
has given the natural qualifications for the ministry and who at the
same time excel in consecration and loyalty, and who have a desire to
serve the Lord in the ministry, in order that new Churches may be
established and the work of God’s Kingdom majr move forward con-
stantly.

During recent years several of our Classes decided not to accept ad-
ditional students for the time being, inasmuch as funds were low and
in view of the fact that several candidates were still available. If
funds are low, as they naturally will be in years of economic depres-
sions, and if the Churches are contributing to the best of their ability
to these funds, then under the circumstances we can certainly justify
the classical decisions referred to.

But, on the other hand, inasmuch as circumstances change con-
stantly, so that the causes for temporary so-called over-supplies may
no longer be operative a few years later; and inasmuch as there is
ever a crying need for able and consecrated preachers of the Gospel
in every nook and comer of our great land; and inasmuch as the world
at large in these days of doubt and dankness is desperately in need of
Christ’s Gospel, therefore we should continue to encourage able and
pious young men to study for the ministry, and we should assist them
financially if need be.

Besides all the foregoing, if God pleases to give us young men who
are able and consecrated and who have an ardent and unselfish desire
for the Ministry, then should we not look upon that fact as a great
favor of God and as a grave responsibility toward Him ? And should
we not make it possible for such young men to prepare themselves if
this is at all within the range of possibilities?

We should judge with great care, but if God calls, then let us be
sure to answer. But, of course, while helping young men to prepare
themselves for the ministry, let us by all means open fields of labor as
far as conditions permit.

4. How should Churches proceed in securing worthy applicants for
support from their Student Funds?

Many young men begin to study for the ministry entirely upon their
own initiative. Elders and Deacons are nominated by the Consistory
and chosen by fhe Church, and no man amongst us thinks of suggest-
ing himself as a fit candidate for these offices. But when it comes to
the ministerial office, men — and very young men and inexperienced
men at that — are very often expected to take the first steps toward the
office independently. We expect them to suggest themselves. We
know that there are reasons for this. And yet we believe that the
Churches from the very outset should play a larger part in the calling
of a man to the ministry than has been the case in the past. This, we
believe, will save many a man and many a Church from bitter ex-
periences.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Consistories should be on the alert constantly. They should most
certainly encourage worthy and able young men. Ministers especially
should use their good influence, urging eminent young men of their
flock to consider prayerfully the question whether perhaps God is call-
ing them to the ministry, and encouraging and directing them if this
desire and conviction is present. Such as are financially handicapped
should be encouraged to apply to the Classis for aid.

On the other hand ministers and Consistories should not hesitate
to advise against any young men whom they deem to be lacking in any
essential qualification. Our Classis should be very careful in their
choice. They should not hesitate to turn down any and all applicants
for aid. They should not merely go by a simple examination upon the
floor of Classis and a formal recommendation of the young man’s Con-
sistory. Perhaps trustworthy brethren who know the young man
should be quizzed a great deal more than the young man himself.

Intellectual ability and knowledge should be stressed. But char-
acter and piety not a whit less.

5. Should those who receive support from the Churches according to
this article be required to repay?

Some of our Classes do not require repayment, but others do. Again
others require partial repayment.

Article 19 certainly favors those Classes which do not require re-
payment. The article does not provide for a loan fund, but it stipu-
lates that the Churches shall try hard to secure worthy young men to
study for the ministry, which young men are to be supported by the
Churches during their years of study. Thus the article has been in-
terpreted from the beginning, and so it is interpreted today. As is
agreed by all, the article refers to worthy young men, who lack the
necessary money to go to school.

The fact that as a rule a Minister does not receive more money
than he really needs for his family, car, books, etc., no doubt caused
the Churches to provide for simple support of poor students and no
more.

Synod of 1928 went on record as favoring non-repavment. It sug-
gested that the various Classes work in this direction.

It is very true that some of our Ministers with good salaries and
small families, during pre-depression years, received more salary than
they actually needed for current expenses. But these were exceptional
years for most of our people. And these years were exceptional for
some Ministers also.

We seriously question the propriety of the establishment of a semi-
loan fund for needy students on the basis of Article 19.

6. Who should receive aid from our Student Funds?

Should only those receive aid who are ready to attend our own Cal-
vin College or Calvin Seminary, or should we also extend support to
those who must still do high school work ? The latter as well as the
former. A very able and promising young man may not have finished
his high school work by reason of circumstances. He may find it im-
possible to finish his high school work without aid. Then why should
any Classis exclude him from aid on that account? Of course, he
should be expected to attend one of our Christian High Schools.

Should our Classes ever extend financial aid to students who have
finished the prescribed course at our own school, and who desire to do
some post-graduate work elsewhere? Every case of this kind should
be judged on its own merits. But if there be no urgent need for

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Ministers, i.e. if there are not a large number of vacant Churches
anxiously waiting for candidates, and if the student can offer good
reasons for his desire to do post-graduate work, then, generally speak-
mg, his request should be granted. We should encourage our young
men to prepare themselves for the Gospel ministry as adequately as
possible.

Of course, the Classis which supports him has a right to judge about
the nature of his post-graduate studies and may decide at what school
he is going to study.

7. The problem of those who fail to enter the ministry and refuse
to repay.

Sometimes it happens that a man receives aid from a Student Fund
but never finishes his course and never enters the ministry, and yet
refuses to repay the moneys allowed. All Classes now require a writ-
ten promise that they will repay the full amount received in case they
do not enter the ministry. Does refusal to repay under these circum-
stances constitute a censurable sin ? Beyond a doubt, it does. If need
be a Classis would even be justified in seeking the aid of the civil laws
to collect these Kingdom moneys. No one, who is in the position to
restore money of this kind and under the circumstances noted, has any
right to retain these moneys.

ARTICLE XX

Students who have received permission according to the rule
in this mattery and persons who have according to Article 8
been judged competent to be prepared for the Ministry of the
Word, shall, for their own training, and for the sake of be-
coming known to the Congregations, be allowed to speak a word
of edification in the meetings for public worship.

CONCERNING EXHORTERS

1. The historical antecedents of Article 20.

Originally, shortly after the Reformation, regularly organized theo-
logical schools did not exist. Hence training for the ministry was a
personal enterprise and irregular at best.

The Wezelian Convention (1568) decided that Churches which had
Ministers with exceptional ability should institute “proposition,” i.e.,
classes for men with gifts and desires for the ministry, which men
should be trained in preaching, not publicly but privately.

Synod of 1586 ruled that after having passed an examination “at
the university or Classis,” students for the ministry at one of these
training centers, were permitted to teach in the public assemblies of
the Churches. The examination “at the university” referred no doubt
to the theological faculties of the universities, which faculties were at
first Reformed and reliable. The great Synod of Dort in its Church
Order, however, went back to the Wezelian stipulation, ruling out the
practice of what is sometimes called “student preaching.” Practice
preaching was again limited to the confines of the private class rooms.
Authorities explain this move in the light of the Arminian difficulties.
Synod, for gocni reasons, no longer trusted the faculties at the univer-
sities, and yet did not wish to stir up more trouble by limiting the ex-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

animation for “license to preach” to the Churches themselves through
their Classes, and so discontinued the whole practice of “student
preaching.”

The Churches of the Secession in Holland, 1834, again permitted
the practice. The Churches of the Doleantie, 1886, (the second seces-
sion movement under leadership of Kuyper and others) did not favor
the practice. In the united Churches, the Gereformeerde Kerken, the
practice varied from time to time, but in 1908 they definitely decided
against “student preaching.” Thus it has been in these Churches ever
since.

Our revision (1914) of the Church Order of Dort, as far as Article
20 is concerned, is quite radical. In the Church Order of Dort Article
20 provides for training centers or “proposition” in Churches with
gifted Ministers. In our Church Order Article 20 governs the speak-
ing of “a word of edification” in public worship.

2. The two classes of unordained men included in the provision of
Article 20.

In the first place the article concerns regular students for the min-
istry. That is to say, men who are looking forward to the ministry
and are taking a course of study at our seminary. Art. 20 does not
state specifically that it refers to students at our own seminary, but
inasmuch as we would not think of licensing students regardless of tne
schools which they might be attending, and inasmuch as the “rule in
this matter” to which the article makes reference is a rule which per-
tains to students of our own Calvin Seminary in Grand Rapids, this
reference is altogether valid. The latest rulings of Synod regarding
these matters were made in 1936. They read as follows:

“1. The Board of Trustees of Calvin College and Seminary may grant
licensure to conduct religious services in our Churches only to such as:

a. Are enrolled as regular students in our Seminary.

b. Have successfully passed the final examinations of the Junior year
in the Seminary.

2. The Board shall not grant licensure to such students until it has
made sure of the following with respect to each applicant:

a. That he is a member in good standing in our Churches.

b. That he has the spiritual qualification necessary for the ministry,
and that he considers himself called of God to prepare himself for
the office of ministering the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

c. That he intends to enter the ministry of the Christian Reformed
Church.

d. That he has sufficient knowledge of the Bible, and especially of our
Reformed principles to act as a guide to others.

e. That he can speak acceptably and to the edification of the church-
es. It is left to the discretion of the Board, however, whether it
will obtain this information by consulting the Seminary Faculty
or by examining the applicants.

3. The Board has the right to extend the licensure of those who
want to take post-graduate work, but with the understanding :

a. That this privilege is to be granted only to such as are taking
post-graduate work in theology, and declare that it is their definite
intention to enter the ministry in the Christian Reformed Church.

b. That this extension is valid for no more than one year.

c. That further extension may be given at the end of the first year in
case the applicant makes his request in writing, and at the end of
the second year if he appears in person and is willing to submit to
another examination. (The latter part of Rule 3c does not apply
to those who are taking post-graduate work in theology outside of
the United States or Canada.)

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

4. The Board is obliged to revoke the licensure:

a. Of those who have completed their theological studies and have
railed to take steps to enter into the sacred ministry of the Word.
D. Of those undergraduate students who either discontinue their
studies or fail to enroll again at the Seminary.”

By saying that Art. 20 refers to students of our own seminary, we
do not mean to say that Classes have not the right to license young
men belonging to one of our Churches, but studying at some other
seminary, in the abstract. They have this right. Synod of 1924 even
specifically stated that the various Classes most assuredly had the
right to license students of other schools to exhort in their respective
confines, but urged the Classes not to make use of this right in behalf
of our own school and as a measure of safety.

In the second place Article 20 specifies that “persons who have ac-
cording to Article 8 been judged competent to be prepared for the
Ministry of the Word,” may be given the right to preach in the
Churches. This right to be given by the Classes, of course, inasmuch
as this is strictly a classical matter and not a matter falling under the
charge of Curatorium, i.e. the Board of Trustees of Calvin College and
Seminary.

3. The designation “a word of edification.”

Why is the phrase “a word of edification” used? No doubt to dis-
tinguish between the leadership and work of the ordained and the un-
ordained in public worship.

To preach really signifies to proclaim upon the authority of and as
legal appointee by one in authority. He who preaches, according to
the meaning of the concept, comes upon special authority of God and
His Christ to speak as representative of God. Now it can only be said
of those who have been regularly called by God (through the Church),
and ordained by Him to this prophetic office, that they are His legal
ambassadors proclaiming the Word and will of God. The unordained
man can speak to the edification of his fellow-believers, but he cannot
speak with that special authority with which the ordained Minister
may and must come.

Externally, as far as form and words are concerned, the messages
of the ordained and the unordained will often differ very little. But
this does not alter the fact that there is a difference. The selfsame
words may be spoken by a private citizen and a legally appointed
judge sitting in judgment. And yet there is a difference. And so
again and again we are dealing with essential differences in life, when
formal differences are negligible.

Our Methodist friends speak of exhortation. This term has also
been used in our circles. It is to be preferred above edification. The
verb to exhort is at least more telling and distinctive than the verb
to edify.

What can be said in favor of the practice of exhorting ? It is help-
ful to the student. What the student receives at school is predominate-
ly theory. But as an exhorter in the Churches he receives practical
training. Theory is fundamental and indispensable. But if a good
theoretical training can be reenforced and capped off with some prac-
tical training, then that certainly should be appreciated. Compare the
method of training medical doctors.

In the second place, it is also helpful to the Churches. They not
only profit by the exhortation of the student exhorter, but also learn
to know the future candidates and Ministers somewhat, so that they
can call more intelligently during future months or years.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Which are some of the objections raised against the practice of per-
mitting students to exhort? It is said to be detrimental to the stu-
dent, inasmuch as it robs him of much valuable time which he should
spend on his studies at school, and to some extent lessens his desire
for thorough work at school, centering his thought and endeavors on
the practical work in the Churches when he should be mastering his
theological studies.

In the second place it is claimed to be detrimental to the Churches,
inasmuch as young men who have not yet finished their course of
training are not in position to lead and teach in public worship. In-
ferior material will often be presented to the Church, so it is said, and
in some cases erroneous doctrines or presentations may be held forth
from the pulpits, due to lack of sufficient training on the part of the
students.

These objections are surely not without weight. But we feel that
there is more to be said in favor of the practice than against it. We
believe that the valuable practical training which exhorting affords
our students can be secured without permitting the theoretical basis
of our ministerial training to suffer. Theory and practice cannot and
need not and should not always be separated by a high and straight
fence. Educational psychology also tells us this. And through proper
supervision and regulation the evils which are apt to attend this
usage can surely be held down to a minimum.

Let us remember in this connection that there is no difference in
principle here. The case is not thus, that one favors the practice of
permitting unordained men to lead in public worship upon special
occasion, but that the other considers this practice to be unBiblical.
For those who are opposed to the practice of permitting students to
exhort, heartily favor the practice of permitting candidates to exhort,
whereas candidates are unordained as well as students.

4. Why does Art. 20 only concern the speaking of “a word
of edification.”

Because this is the only activity that exhorters may engage in.
Only the ordained official representatives of God may administer the
sacraments. This is also true as far as the preaching of the Word
is concerned. But for the official proclamation of God’s Word and
will, the exhortation of an exhorter, as brother amongst brethren,
can be substituted by way of exception. But we have no substitute
for the sealing ordinances of God’s covenant, i.e., the sacraments.

ARTICLE XXI.

The Consistories shall see to it that there cure good Christian
Schools in which the parents have their children instructed ac-
cording to the demands of the covenant.

CONSISTORIES AND CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS.

1. The main difference between our present reading of Art. 21 and
the original reading in the Church Order of Dort, 1618-19.
Article 21 in our venerable and historic Church Order (Dort,
1618-19) reads as follows: De Kerkeraden zullen alomme toezien, dat
er goede schoolmeesters zijn, die niet alleen de kinderen leeren lezen,

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

schrijven, spraken en vrije kunsten, maar ook dezelve in godzaligheid
en in den Catechismus onderwijzen. That is to say: “Everywhere
Consistories shall see to it, that there are good schoolmasters who
shall not only instruct the children in reading, writing, languages
and the liberal arts, but likewise in godliness and in the Catechism.’'

As will be noted, the ruling of Dort charges the Consistories to see
to it that there shall be good teachers, whereas our present reading
of the article charges the Consistories to see to it that there are good
Christian Schools.

Why this difference? At the time when the original Church Order
was adopted (this particular article was already adopted by the
Synod of 1586) free, parental Christian Schools were unknown. Hol-
land was leading the world in popular education, but its schools were
controlled and supported by the government.

Conditions were altogether different from what they are today.
The governments of- Europe all stood officially committed to either
the Roman Church or to the Protestants and their Churches. Sepa-
ration between Church and State was virtually unknown. Secondly,
by common consent the governments officially promoted and spon-
sored both religion and education.

Now the government of Holland, (that of the Republic) stood defi-
nitely committed to the Reformed faith, though Roman and human-
istic forces were not silent. Consequently the schools which the gov-
ernment sponsored and supported were Reformed. They were Chris-
tian Day Schools, distinctly Reformed.

But it should be noted further that the government used the Re-
formed Churches to establish, promote, and supervise its schools. As
might be expected, not all saw the need of a general schooling for
all children, and not all realized the import of thorough Christian
education. In some places the people failed to organize and to open
schools. In other places inferior teachers were in charge, some of
whom were not Reformed in confession and life. Consequently, at
various times the Churches gathered in Synod charged the Consisto-
ries to be loyal and vigilant. And whereas the true welfare of the
Churches depended to a large extent upon the schools, the promotion
and control of which the government committed to the Churches,
Article 21 of the Church Order of Dort charges the Consistories
as it does.

Various measures were adopted during these years by the Churches
and approved of by the government, which point to a very close co-
operation between the Churches and the government in the establish-
ment and maintenance of Christian Schools. For instance, the law
required that schoolmasters be professors of the Reformed faith, and
hold membership in one of the Reformed Churches; they had to be
Godly in all their conduct; they were required to subscribe to the Re-
formed confessions; they had to give proof of knowing the Catechism
and of ability to teach it in the school rooms; they were under special
supervision of the Consistories and accountable to them.

Today circumstances are altogether different. Separation between
Church and State is duly recognized, especially in our country. Con-
sequently the government cannot favor one above another through
its schools, but must aim at strict neutrality.

Furthermore, progress of Protestantism and a better understand-
ing of the distinctive and special task of the State and of the Church,
and of the rights and duties of fathers and mothers, has caused us
to see that the ideal, according to God’s ordinances, should ever be
schools owned and controlled by the parents concerned.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Consider in this connection that the Bible persistently charges the
parents with the training of their children, (cf. Deut. 6:7; 11:19; Eph.
6:4). Children are constantly referred to as belonging to their par-
ents and not as belonging to the Church or the State. Responsibility
is therefore always fixed on the fathers and mothers.

Moreover, regarding the State, the Word of God teaches that gov-
ernments have been instituted to maintain good order in civil affairs,
which includes armed defense against men and forces which disturb
the peace and which trample upon justice, as well as the punishment
of all law-breakers, (cf. Rom. 13:1-7). Nowhere does the Word of
God charge the State to rear children.

And regarding the Church, in keeping with the three-fold office of
Christ its glorious Head, the Church must preach the Word; must
show mercy in His name; and must govern the Church under Him.
To be sure, by reason of its prophetic task the Church is charged
to teach. But the subject matter which the Church is required to
teach pertains to the Gospel of the Kingdom and is limited to the
domain of special grace. Only by exception is the Church permitted
to teach so-called secular subjects, such as reading, arithmetic, chem-
istry, psychology, etc. Why? Because these and kindred subjects
are of secondary importance to the welfare of the Church. Flourish-
ing Church life requires that these subjects be taught, but they do
not concern the heart and core of the Church and its task. They are
not absolutely indispensable to the Church. And so the Church should
concentrate on its own specific task, and teach only that which per-
tains to the Gospel and the doctrine of the Kingdom.

However, all of life is related, and all of life stands related there-
fore to the Kingdom. And the so-called secular subjects have a defi-
nite import also for the Church. If, therefore, the proper parties
neglect to instruct the youth in these subjects, or neglect to instruct
the youth in keeping with the Word of God, then the Church may
step in and do that which strictly speaking does not belong to her
specific charge. Whenever her true welfare requires such, the Church
may take to hand things which lie at the outside of the circle of her
interests and not at the center. (For instance, to state the case ex-
tremely: A Church may not go into the business of laying sidewalks
or of graveling roads. But a Church would not hesitate to lay a
sidewalk along the public highway or to gravel a road miles in
length if the proper authorities failed to do so, and if the true wel-
fare of the Church required said sidewalk or graveling.)

But clearly, the Church is not charged to run grade schools, high
schools, or colleges. No more than the State.

Now it was out of consideration of the foregoing reasons that Art.
21 was made to read as it does today, when our Synod of Roseland,
1914, revised our time-honored Church Order.

2. The significance of Article 21.

The wording of this article might lead one who is not fully in-
formed to think that our Church Order stipulates that Consistories,
(1) must organize and maintain good Christian Schools, (2) must
see to it that parents send their children to these Church schools.
This, however, ;s not the meaning of Article 21. The wording of the
Article may be explained from a desire to adhere as closely as pos-
sible to the wording of Article 21 in its historic form. Church
schools have never been advocated by the Reformed Churches. All
that know the history of our Churches and the history of Article 21,
realize that the article as it reads today means to say that our Con-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

sistories must promote the organization and proper maintenance of
good Christian Day Schools by believing parents, and must urge the
members of our Churches to use these schools for the education of
their God entrusted children, if at all possible.

But why does the Church Order stipulate that Consistories must
promote Christian Day Schools, whereas the general schooling of the
child is admittedly not the task of the Church?

In part this question has already been answered in the foregoing.
Consequently we can be brief at this time. Let us remember then
that life is a unit. There is not a subject on the schedule of any
school that does not bear some relation to God and our faith in Him
and our life for Him.

To be specific, we preach and teach in our Churches that the sov-
ereign hand of God guides all of life, that we must acknowledge and
obey God at all times and everywhere. But if our children go to a
school in which this fact is ignored or gainsaid, directly or by im-
plication, we must not be surprised if the teachings of the Church
taken from God’s Word are cast to the winds. This needs no further
argument.

The school should teach in full harmony with the Word of God, as
well as the Church. That will make, by God’s grace, for strong and
well informed Christians. The Church cannot afford, and before God
cannot tolerate, to see much of her precious teachings contradicted
and silenced five days a week, year after year, before our children,
and that while they are in their formative years. Godless and Christ-
less instruction clearly runs counter to the best interests of the
Church, the Kingdom of God in general, the welfare of the child,
and the solemn obligation of Christian parents.

Consequently it becomes the plain duty of the Church to promote
good Christian Schools, and to urge parents to use these schools if
at all possible.

3. What is the significance of the phrase, “according to the covenant
of grace”?

The covenant of grace may be designated as a league of friend-
ship between God and His people in Christ Jesus. Not all men are
included in this covenant, but only the believers and their seed. The
covenant of grace draws a line of separation between men and men;
some are God’s children; others are the children of the world. And
only by the irresistible operation of God’s grace can one who is a
child of Satan become a child of God and a member of the covenant
of grace. Consequently, he who is a believer in Christ as Saviour is
in league with God. He is God’s child; God^s friend. All that he is
and has he would dedicate to God. All of life he relates to God.

Now the privileges and prerogatives of the covenant pertain not
only to believers, but also to the children of believers, (cf. Gen. 17:7;
I Cor. 7:14).

It is not that every child bom of believing parents shall surely
share in the full blessings of the covenant. There are exceptions to
this rule also. Some will reject and break God’s covenant. But God’s
special claim on them, in common with those to whom all the gra-
cious implications of the covenant shall be realized, cannot be denied.
And therefore, as far as God’s claim is concerned, and as far as spe-
cial advantages are concerned, all children born of believing parents
are covenant children. Moreover, all children born of believing par-
ents should be regarded as covenant members to whom the full and
blessed significance of the covenant pertains, until their failure to

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

profess Christ in word and deed forces ns to infer that the full and
actual significance of the covenant is not theirs.

And so all covenant children must be treated and trained as children
of God. Most assuredly then, if at all possible, we should establish
schools which train the child to recognize the wisdom and glory of
God in all things, as well as the dire effects of sin, and the glorious
redemption through Christ; the constant conflict in life between God
and the devil; God’s special claim on him and his life, etc. This type
of training is clearly demanded by the covenant of grace.

4. Good Christian schools.

Why does the Church Order speak of Good Christian schools? Be-
cause not all schools which are Christian day schools are necessarily
good. The ideals after which our Christian schools must strive lie
very high, so high, indeed, that we shall never reach them. And yet
we must bring our schools as near to those ideals as we possibly can.

Not that only. There is always the danger of retrogression. Eter-
nal vigilance is also the price of genuine Christian instruction. Good
buildings, and good educational facilities and thoroughly-trained
teachers who profess the Christian religion, do not necessarily make
good Christian schools. Good equipment, etc., are very desirable. But
love for, and a grasp on the implications of the covenant, and ability
to teach these implications are indispensable for good Christian
schools, worthy of that name and designation. Therefore, Article
21 stipulates .that Consistories shall promote “good” Christian schools.

5. How can Consistories best carry out the charge of Article 21?

As to the establishment of Christian day schools, the Consistories

may urge parents to do their utmost in this respect at the occasion
of family visitation. Furthermore, Consistories can arrange for par-
ents’ meetings at which the need and possibilities of Christian in-
struction is discussed. They can faithfully distribute Christian school
literature, such as published by the Union of Christian Schools. They
can urge the Minister and all members of the Consistory to promote
the cause in their personal contacts with parents. But Consistories
should especially urge their Ministers to remember this cause in
their sermons. The Word of God certainly demands Christian instruc-
tion. These demands should be preached wisely, timely, but also per-
sistently in places where parents are neglectful.

Article 21 also includes the element of supervision over Christian
day schools. It stands to reason that no Consistory should attempt
to act as a super-board over the lawfully appointed school board.
The rightful authority of the parents who constitute the school so-
ciety, and of the school board, should never be ignored.

Briefly stated, to carry out this phase of the charge, Consistory
members may visit the school, or schools, more or less regularly but
voluntarily. They may also make it a point to establish repeated
contacts with the teachers as individual Christians. Through these
means a most natural supervision would result. But Consistory mem-
bers might fail to visit the schools with sufficient frequency unless
appointed to do so. Consequently the appointment of a committee
charged to visit the school or schools repeatedly, and reporting its
impressions to the Consistory, works better. In case one or more
Consistory members also serve on the school board, that in itself
would constitute a constant medium of contact between the school
and the Consistory.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

In case Consistories have good reasons to fear that erroneous doc-
trines or tendencies are fostered in the school, or that the school is
remiss in its task as a distinctively Christian school, the matter
should be brought to the attention of the teacher, the principal, the
school board, or to all, depending on circumstances and the gravity
of the case.

Some hold that in matters of doctrine the Consistory should have
powers beyond the authority of the school board, so that the Con-
sistory would virtually have the right to discharge a teacher over
the decision of a school board. This is by no means the stand of Dr.
F. Rutgers, with whom we concur entirely on this point. He holds
that cases of irreconcilable conflict between a school board and a
Consistory, as to the orthodoxy of teachers will be very, very rare.
But if they do occur, the final step for the Consistory would be to
warn parents against said school, and to sponsor the organization
of a sound school. Of course, individuals involved in the case might
have to be disciplined.

We fail to see how a Consistory can ever step into an extra con-
gregational association and make authoritative decisions for it, no
matter how just its cause may be, unless that association has volun-
tarily placed itself under the final word of a certain Consistory. (The
question whether or not a Consistory should ever accept such final
power is, of course, another matter.) Nothing in the Church Order,
as we see it, would warrant interference as above referred to, and
the whole genius of Reformed church polity is against it.

6. Article 21 and our public schools.

Can the charge of this article in any case be applied to our public
schools? We -would answer in the negative inasmuch as all states,
to the best of our knowledge, have laws prohibiting sectarian instruc-
tion in the public schools. The Christian religion, and its approach
to life and the world in general, by court decisions falls under this
term “sectarian.” Bible reading without comment is permitted in
most states, provided that no parent of the district concerned objects.
Real Christian instruction as we conceive of it, is practically out of
the question in a public school. The state must aim at strict neutrality
as long as the laws governing education stand as they are today.

However, in communities in which a parental Christian school is
out of the question, and in which Christian citizens have a free hand,
they should by all means engage teachers who are Christians, so that
the Bible may be read with reverence, and the general atmosphere
of the school room may not be antagonistic to Christianity, but may
rather be congenial to Christianity. (Let us remember in this con-
nection that strict neutrality is really out of the question. We are
either for Christ or against Him in all things. Also in the realm of
education.) These parents could even do more. They could also peti-
tion their legislators to revise the law in such a way, that positive
Christian instruction may be given in public schools, if all the parents
of a certain district give consent.

We do not make much of this point inasmuch as legislators would
be unwilling to enact laws as designated. And if they did, very few
school districts would be without some objector which would make
Christian instruction in the public school impossible once more.

But supposing all parents of a given district desire Christian in-
struction for their children, would it be wrong to introduce it in
view of what the state statutes say? If all parents of certain school
districts desire positive Christian instruction for their children

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

through the medium of the public school, they should not begin to
introduce said instruction without the knowledge of all the authori-
ties concerned. These should be notified previously so that the giving
of Christian instruction may be altogether open and above board, and
that the instruction may be given with at least the tacit approval of
the rightful authorities. We do not believe that the giving of Chris-
tian instruction in any of our public schools under these circumstances
can be called unchristian or unethical inasmuch as the statutes which
prescribe neutral instruction were adopted generally speaking not
from Godless and unChristian motives, but rather to safeguard the
rights of parents who might object to “sectarian instruction”. If in
any of our states the statutes were made to provide for “non-sectarian
instruction” in public schools, from the clear and expressed motive
of desiring to bar any and all religious instruction from all their
public schools, and to see to it that no school tax money is in any
way spent for so-called “sectarian instruction”, then in such states
and as long as such laws are on the statute books our people should
not undertake to introduce Christian instruction in their public
schools.

By all means, let our Consistories faithfully sponsor Christian day
schools as conceived of in Article 21. Even in communities where a
Christian school is out of the question for the time being, the ideal
should be held before Christian parents constantly.

7. Parental neglect and discipline.

Should Consistories discipline parents who fail to give their child-
ren Christian day school instruction though it be within their power
to do so?

There may be cases in which parents refrain from sending their
children to a Christian school for reasons which they consider valid
before God, although others question or deny the validity of their
position. In all such cases the matter must be left to the consciences
of the parents concerned, although the Consistory should urge prayer-
ful reconsideration repeatedly.

There may be other parents who simply do not feel the need of
Christian day school instruction. Their confession may be blameless
as well as their consecration of life. And their Christian conduct re-
garding other matters may be altogether proper and unoffensive.
But there is something present or lacking in their make-up and out-
look which causes them to prefer the public school for their children.
The position of such parents is grossly inconsistent to put it mildly.
Now, all such people may and must be disciplined in the sense of
admonishment, but cannot be disciplined in the sense of ecclesiastical
censure, which ultimately might culminate in excommunication. Why
not? None can be disciplined in the latter sense unless he has given
serious doubt as to his Christianity, through impenitence regarding
a special sin, or sin in general. And none can be excommunicated
except a Church is compelled to believe that the party in question is
not a Christian. (Cf. Form for Excommunication.)

They who can, but do not use the Christian school for their children
are making a big mistake, and are chargeable before God. But they
may be serious-minded Christians for all that. The training of those
parents may have much to do with their conception.

Parents who fail to send their children to a Christian school be-
cause they assume a careless attitude toward their Christian obliga-
tion and make light of their baptismal vows, should be admonished,
censured, and perhaps excommunicated because of their unChristian

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

attitude toward God and His commands in general. In other words,
mere failure to send children to a Christian school may never con-
stitute a basis for censure and excommunication, but persistent in-
difference toward Christian duty, including proper child training, may.
For by such indifference we clearly testify that we are either tem-
porarily wandering away from God, or that our Christianity is only
a sham, without reality, and that we are Godless at heart.

8. Consistory members out of sympathy with Christian schools.

Can one who is opposed to Christian schools serve as Consistory
member? Not very well. Those who serve in Consistory pledge them-
selves to uphold the doctrine and government of our Churches. (Cf.
Form of Subscription.) Now, the Church Order, according to which
they help to govern the Church, requires that they promote and spon-
sor Christian schools. Therefore one who is opposed to these schools
cannot serve in the Consistory. He cannot do what is expected of
him. Even those who assume a lukewarm attitude toward the Chris-
tian school movement are not desirable candidates for the Consistory.

We should, of course, remember that every case must be judged
on its own merits. A general rule in this matter should never be
made.

Furthermore, some men who feel the need of Christian schools, are
sadly weak and wanting in other respects. Consequently a Consistory
may be compelled to nominate one who is not a promoter and lover
of Christian schools, for the simple reason that other brethren have
still more serious faults.

9. Catechetical instruction.

In addition to what has been remarked regarding catechetical in-
struction under Art. 16 we here note that the Synod of Dort (1618-19)
spoke of three kinds of catechetical instruction; namely that given
in the home, in the school, and in the Church. Parents were ex-
pected to instruct their children and their whole household in the
Word of God and the catechism which had been adopted. This paren-
tal instruction has not always received its just due. We of today
can stand a good reminder on this point. How important that children
shall learn to know the true teachings of God’s Holy Word from
their parents. What a noble work and beneficial exercise it would
be for the parents themselves. And would not this work faithfully
performed draw parents and children closer together, and make them
more confidential regarding matters spiritual?

Regarding the catechetical work in the schools the Synod of Dort
decided: (1) That the government should open schools everywhere,
and that the children of the poor should receive free instruction in
these schools. (2) That the schoolmasters had to be members of a
Reformed Church, pious in their conduct and well versed in the
catechism. (3) That three booklets should be used for catechetical
instruction, one for the smaller children, one for the more advanced
scholars, and then the regular Heidelberg Catechism. (4) That super-
vision over the schools should repose with the Ministers, who to-
gether with an Elder or one of the magistrates should visit the
schools, and encourage both teachers and pupils. (5) That the school-
masters, in case they were delinquent, should be admonished by the
Consistories, and if this did not help, the authorities should be asked
to act.

From all this it certainly appears that the governmental schools
of this period were certainly Reformed governmental schools. Where

100

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

at first such was not the case, but where the schools were under the
influence and dominance of Rome, the reformatory wTork of the
Churches was soon extended to the schools.

Regarding Church instruction it was deemed desirable that Minis-
ters in rural districts should personally teach the catechism in the
schools, and that they should instruct the older scholars at his home
or in the Consistory room and that weekly. Those that desired to
receive permission to come to the Lord’s Table he should instruct dili-
gently for three or four weeks.

Our Synod of 1928 urged and encouraged Consistories to continue
catechetical instruction for a nine-month term each year. (Art. 46.)
And Synod of 1918 already held that as a Reformed group and in
regard to the training of our children we should place all emphasis
upon catechetical instruction in the home and by the Church, as well
as upon Christian school instruction. If these are held in honor
amongst us as they should be, so Synod declared, then there will be
but small need for Sunday schools in our midst for our own children.

Furthermore Synod held that the Sunday school could only be ac-
corded a place of its own in our Churches if it were used as a means
of evangelization. Synod urged the Churches in this direction. (Cf.
Acts, 1918, pp. 53, 150.)

And Synod of 1888 ruled that parents who neglect to send their
children to catechism, though they can do so, become subject to dis-
cipline. And young people who have come to years of discretion and
refuse to attend catechetical instruction classes subject themselves
to discipline also.

Regarding our Sunday schools, their place, management, etc., we
refer to what we have said under Article 16.

ARTICLE XXII.

The Elders shall be chosen by the judgment of the Consistory
and the Deacons according to the regulations for that purpose
established by the Consistory. In pursuance of these regula-
tions, every church shall be at liberty, according to its circum-
stances, to give the members an opportunity to direct attention
to suitable persons, in order that the Consistory may there-
upon either present to the congregation for election as many
Eiders as are needed , that they may, after they are approved
by it, unless any obstacle arise , be installed with public prayers
and stipulations; or present a double number to the congrega-
tion and thereupon install the one-half chosen by it, in the
aforesaid manner, agreeably to the Form for this purpose.

THE APPOINTMENT OF ELDERS

John Calvin restored, by the grace and in the providence of God,
the Elders to their rightful position in the Church. The Roman
Church was much deformed in its conception of the various offices
in God’s Church. The Ministers were changed into bishops who not
only had the right to administer the sacraments but also the right
to ordain or appoint priests. The Elder’s office was deformed into
the priest's office, and they were charged to administer the sacraments.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

101

The Deacons no longer cared for the poor, the work of mercy having
been largely delegated to the various orders, but they were made to
be assistants to the priests, in the celebration of the mass, as the
Levites of old assisted the priests in the temple.

The Lutheran Church in Germany failed to restore the Elder's
office, the government of the Church being left to the civil authorities.
Even Zwingli, as Jansen points out,* permitted the civil government
to rule the Church. But Calvin sponsored the appointment of Elders
as the Reformed Churches have known them ever since. He did this
inasmuch as he saw that this was Biblical, and because he considered
it very necessary in view of the dangers of hierarchism, i.e., the abuse
of power on the part of one or a few.

1. The calling of Elders: Its constituent elements^

Article 22 provides for three distinct elements which together
constitute the process by which men are inducted into the Elder’s
office. They are: Election, Approbation, and Installation. These same
three are also provided for in Article 4, which governs the calling
of Ministers into office. But in addition to these three Article 4 also
provides for a fourth step. Namely: Examination. No one can be
ordained to the ministry without being examined. For the Eldership
however, our Churches do not require an examination. The matter
has been mentioned and suggested repeatedly. Those who favored
an examination for Elders would point to I Tim. 3:10, which even
demands that Deacons “first be proved” before they begin to serve.
Moreover, the import of the work of an Elder, so it was said, demands
that he be well versed in the Bible and the Confessions, and that he
prove his qualifications for Church governmental and pastoral work.

But the Churches have never taken steps to introduce examinations
for Elders. The practical objections against the suggestion are in
the main the following:

(1) The “proving” required in I Tim. 3:10 can be conveniently car-
ried out informally by due consideration of the brethren to be nomi-
nated for Elder at the Consistory meeting. (2) A regular course of
instruction for the Eldership cannot be called necessarv. The general
training which the catechism classes, the societies and general read-
ing afford our wide awake members is sufficient. The most desirable
men might even .be too modest to take a course designed to fit one
for the Elder’s office, and the bold but less desirable might be anxious
to take such a course. (3) Courses of study for the eldership would
at best be introduced in only a few Churches and that would make
for irregularity and inequality. Consequently Article 22 requires
only: election, approbation, and installation.

2. The election of Elders.

Who may be elected to the Elder's office? Those that answer to
the descriptions given in I Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. These two
passages give a fuller description of qualities desirable and necessary
in an Elder than any other in Holy Writ. They are therefore very
important and should be borne in mind constantly.

As a general rule it may be said that the following are some of
the chief requisites for a good Elder in our Churches: A thorough
knowledge of God’s Word; unquestioned sincerity of heart as a pro-
fessing Christian; whole-hearted loyalty to the Church as to its doc-
trinal position; exemplary conduct in everyday life; ability to instruct

* Jansen: Xorte Verklaring-, etc., page 93.

102

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

others; forbearance; good judgment; self-denying devotion. All these
as will be noted are virtually implied in the passages of Scripture
referred to above.

Are they who have close relatives, such as father or a brother in
the Consistory, eligible to election? They certainly are. When there
are a number of men available in a certain Church it may not be
the part of wisdom to nominate sons or brothers of those already
holding office, but it would not be against the Bible and our Church
Order. It is well to remember in this connection that Jesus chose
more than one set of brothers to serve as Apostles, (cf. Peter and
Andrew, James and John.) But again we say, if others are available,
it may be better not to nominate close relatives of those already in
office. But to exclude them systematically and regardless of circum-
stances would^ be wrong. It would often work injury to the Church
and be an injustice toward many excellent brethren.

The question is sometimes asked whether brethren otherwise well
qualified and desirable, but whose wife or children manifest some very
disagreeable characteristics or even unChristian attitudes, are eligible
to office. It is certainly advisable to take note of all the characteris-
tics enumerated in Holy Writ in the passages already referred to,
but if a Consistory is convinced that a certain brother is not respon-
sible for undesirable conditions in his home, then these undesirable
conditions need not bar him from office. However, if a large number
of brethren are available, then it is best to select those whose families
are also exemplary.

By whom are the Elders to be elected to office? According to the
wording of Article 22 Elders are chosen to office “by the judgment
of the Consistory and Deacons.” The term “Consistory,” when used
in distinction from “Deacons” in the Church Order, has reference to
Ministers and Elders, (cf. our interpretation of Article 4.) Article
22 therefore stipulates that in the election of Elders, all three offices
shall co-operate. Just as we find it in Articles 4, 5, and 24.

This does not mean that the body of believers as such has no right
and voice in £he matter. In the last analysis Christ is the only ruler
in the Church. He is its government. For He is the Church’s great
Prophet, only High Priest and eternal King. This three-fold authority
of Christ is delegated by Him to our Ministers, Deacons and Elders.
But clearly, no man would assume to himself this delegated authority
of Christ He must be appointed by Christ. Through whom?
Through the Church, the organized body of believers, acting as agents
of Christ, either directly, as is the case when a Church is newly or-
ganized and when the office-bearers are appointed for the first time,
or more indirectly, as is the case when the office-bearers previously
appointed in consultation with the Congregation, make new appoint-
ments for the Church concerned.

Consequently our Confession of Faith begins as follows: “We be-
lieve that the Ministers of God’s Word, the elders, and the deacons
ought to be chosen by a lawful election by the Church, . . . .” And
for this reason the first question to which Elders and Deacons must
respond at the time of their installation reads as follows: “Do you,
both elders and deacons, feel in your hearts that you are lawfully
called of God’s church, and consequently of God Himself, to these
your respective holy offices?”

Article 22 does not mean to say that inherently the office-
bearers, and they only, have the right to appoint to office. It is well
to remember in this connection that in our Three Forms of Unity we
have a statement of doctrine and Biblical principles, but that the

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

103

Church Order is a set of rules accepted by the Churches for the pro-
motion of good order and due regularity in Church affairs. The
Church Order is not even in the first place a summary of Church
governmental principles, gleaned from Holy Writ, but rather a com-
pilation of rules according to which the Churches are to be ruled and
according to which the task and interests of the Churches are to be
promoted. Of course, nothing in the Church Order runs counter to
Holy Writ and the principles set forth in our doctrinal standards.
But this is the point: the various stipulations of the Church Order
cannot always be given that dogmatical interpretation which their
mere words might seem to demand. Very often a given stipulation
is but a rule of good order which all the Churches have agreed to
follow, and hence must follow under all normal circumstances, for
reasons of expediency, i.e., for the promotion of the true welfare of
the Churches.

Now Reformed Church governmental principles on this score, to-
gether with what the Bible presents to us regarding appointment to
office, f.i. Acts 1 and Acts 6, and the statement from our Confession,
and the first questions from the Form of installation, all lead us to
hold that Article 22 does not read as it does, because office-bearers
have in and by themselves inherent authority to appoint to office.
This interpretation would, moreover, agree with the Roman concep-
tion of the offices and its teaching concerning the minority of the
believers. But it would run counter to the Reformed conception con-
cerning the rights and duties of the congregation and the three-fold
office of all believers.

Briefly stated, this article of our Church Order provides that the
office-bearers, upon the authority vested in them by Christ, shall exer-
cise the right of guidance and definite control in the matter of ap-
pointment to office by the Congregation. This article acknowledges
the authority and the responsibility of the office-bearers entrusted to
them by Christ, and at the same time does justice to the rights of
the body of believers forming a local Church. It is also a very wise
arrangement. A smaller group of select men, vested with special au-
thority in the Church and in position to know the needs of the
Church and its membership, is better qualified to make wise decisions
than the body of believers acting directly and without guidance and
safeguards.

Which modes of procedure does Article 22 permit the Consisto-
ries to follow in the matter of calling men to the office of Elder?
In the first place the Consistory may give the congregation an op-
portunity to suggest various brethren for candidacy. The Consistory
is, of course, at liberty to supplement this list. With the complete
list before it, the Consistory now selects as many names as there
are vacancies £q be filled. Their choice is next made known to the
Congregation and unless valid objections are presented to the Con-
sistory, the brethren concerned are inducted into office in the regular
manner. The second mode of procedure which Consistories may em-
ploy is as follows : The Consistories nominate for office twice as many
brethren as there are vacancies to be filled. In due time the con-
gregation chooses one-half of these nominees, who, unless valid ob-
jections should be presented, are properly installed at the time ap-
pointed. We know of no Church in our whole denomination which
does not follow the second mode of procedure. This method is also
in general use in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands.

It may be said that when this second and common mode of appoint-
ing brethren to office is followed, Consistories are at liberty to give

104

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

the congregation an opportunity to suggest possible nominees. This
element of the first mode of procedure in calling men to office, may
certainly be used when the second mode is followed. It may be less
necessary to do so in our smaller Churches inasmuch as the Consisto-
ries of these smaller Churches will know the membership of their
Churches sufficiently well to nominate without this activity on the
part of the Church, but in larger Churches it is doubtless very desir-
able.

What is the significance of the phrase “according to the regula-
tions for that purpose established by the Consistory”? The Church
Order presupposes that each Consistory has a set of rules according
to which elections shall be conducted. In Article 4, which concerns
the election of Ministers, this same phrase occurs. Whenever the
congregation is called together for the purpose of electing office-
bearers, partiality and arbitrariness should be out of the question.
To avoid these a set of rules consistently followed is very desirable.

Then again, certain questions should not merely be left to usage
and custom. For instance: Proper announcement of nominations
should be made prior to every election; elections should take place by
ballot; a majority vote should elect; etc. These and like rules are
not found in the Church Order. They should be incorporated in a
short set of rules governing elections. Furthermore, problems are
apt to present themselves at any meeting. For example: In case
more brethren receive a majority vote than the number of vacancies
to be filled, what is to be done? When two candidates for one office
receive an equal number of votes, what should be the procedure?
Questions such as these cannot be decided by the congregation inas-
much as the Consistory is the ruling body and not the congregational
gathering. Moreover, for the Consistory to decide on such problems
at the time when they present themselves might open the door to
partiality or at least the semblance of partiality. Permanent rules
should govern all such cases.

To the best of our knowledge, very few of our Churches have a
set of regulations such as the Church Order here prescribes. This
is not as it should be. Various Church Order manuals published in
the Netherlands offer model sets of rules for this purpose. For com-
pleteness’ sake, and to give our Churches an example in the English
language, we here add a model of our own.

Suggested Set of Rules Governing the Election of
Elders and Deacons

Art 1. Elders and Deacons for this Church shall be chosen ac-
cording to the stipulations of Articles 22 and 24 of our Church
Order, and with the observance of the rules contained in the follow-
ing articles of this set of rules.

Art. 2. During the autumn of each year the Consistory with the
Deacons shall meet to nominate candidates for Elders and Deacons.
Twice as many brethren are to be nominated as the number of vacan-
cies occurring. The nominations are announced at least for the space
of two weeks. Before election takes place at least one Consistory
meeting must occur in order that possible objections may be duly
considered.

Art. 3. During the latter part of November the Consistory calls a
Congregational meeting together to which all male members in good
and regular standing are invited. All such and only such are entitled
to a vote. The number of those eligible to vote shall be recorded.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

105

The President will announce the nominees once more and give in-
structions if need be. Voting shall always be by ballot.

Art. 4. A majority of those voting elects. Blank ballots are to be
deducted from the total. One half of the valid votes plus one shall
constitute a majority when the number of votes is an even figure.
When the number of valid votes is uneven, one-half of such votes
plus a half a vote shall constitute the majority. (Thus 8 would be
the majority of 15.)

In case more brethren received a majority of votes than are needed
those having received 4/5 or more of the votes cast shall be considered
elected. A new vote shall be taken on all the others that received
a majority. When a tie vote occurs between brethren, only one of
whom can be chosen, another vote is taken between these two. If the
result is again a tie, the lot is to be cast.

Art. 5. The results of the elections are announced at least two
weeks after which a Consistory meeting must be held for the receiv-
ing and consideration of possible objections. If a re-election must be
held for one or more of the vacancies, the same general rules are to
be observed.

Art. 6. Installation into office takes place on Jan. 1 or the first
Sunday of the New Year. The term of service of a newly elected
office-bearer begins with his installation and ceases as soon as a suc-
cessor has been installed in his place at the end of his term of service.

Art. 7V Vacancies which occur during the course of the year shall
be filled in keeping with the foregoing rules. If the end of the year
is near, the Consistory may decide to wait until the regular elections.

Art. 8. Objections against methods of procedure should be offered
at the same meeting at which they occur. Those who fail to reveal
such objections at the same meeting at which they take place forfeit
their right of protest.

3. The approbation of elected Elders.

The approbation, or approval of the congregation takes place after
the election and before the installation. When the second mode of
procedure permitted by our Church Order is followed then there is
also a preliminary approval on the part of the congregation. For the
nominations are announced to the Church and those who have objec-
tions can register these. But the actual and final approbation on
the part of the Church takes place after election. Some have con-
tended that the approbation prior to election is sufficient. But the
Form for Installation clearly addresses the congregation thus:

“Beloved Christians, having previously made known unto you the
names of our brethren who were chosen to the office of Elders and
Deacons in this church, and no one having appeared to allege any-
thing lawful against them, we shall therefore in the name of the
Lord, proceed to their ordination.”

This is as might be expected. Surely if one has serious objections
against his own nomination or the nomination of another he ought
not to wait, but make known his difficulty prior to the election. But
if the Consistory maintains the nomination and the brother concerned
is elected, the complaining party must certainly receive opportunity
to voice his objections once more. And those elected may lack the
liberty of conscience to accept the office. They must be able to say
that being duly elected of God's Church, they feel themselves called
of God to their office. If they have serious objections on this score
they must make these known to the Consistory. Moreover, certain
valid objections against one of the elected brethren may arise after

106

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

the election. To use an extreme illustration: An elected brother
might drink himself drunk after an election and thus make himself
undesirable for the time being at least, although his conduct on this
score was above reproach previously.

If objections are entered against any elected brother, but the Con-
sistory finds that the objections are not valid and insufficient then
the party concerned is installed as usual. But if the complaining
member gives notice of appeal to Classis, then the installation should
wait until after the Classis has considered the matter. However, if
the Consistory is fully persuaded that the objector is merely moti-
vated by jealousy or ill-will then the Consistory has the right to pro-
ceed with the installation in spite of the appeal to Classis. But it
stands to reason that a Consistory will await the verdict of its
Classis unless the circumstances are very extraordinary. And when a
Consistory is minded to install a brother in spite of an appeal to
Classis, it should first consult a neighboring Consistory or its Church
visitors as a matter of good order and Christian consideration toward
the aggrieved party. If a Consistory has awaited the verdict of its
Classis, and if the Classis advises to install, then the Consistory
should install without delay, even though the protesting brother
should appeal to Synod. No one duly elected should be barred from
office for months by a series of protests. That would be unjust toward
the elected brother, and toward the Church.

If the Consistory sustains any objections raised against an elected
brother, and if the objections cannot be removed, then the Consistory
should declare the election of the brother concerned void, and should
let the congregation make a new choice.

4. The Installation.

What is the significance of the installation of office-bearers? In-
stallation of office-bearers is not to be identified with appointment
to office. Appointment to office takes place through the process of
election by the Church. Under special circumstances men have as-
sumed office without formal installation. For instance, in days of
persecution no one ever questioned the legality of their position as
office-bearers. Why then does the Church Order provide for proper
installation? So that the appointees may publicly accept their ap-
pointment to office, and publicly assume their responsibilities, openly
promising before God and His Church loyalty and devotion, and
openly testify that they accept the appointment as coming from God
Himself. Also, in order that the congregation may receive its new
office-bearers in the right attitude of heart and mind. Furthermore,
in order that the congregation may appropriately implore God’s
blessing upon the newly elected office-bearers.

In small congregations it sometimes is necessary to nominate those
for office whose term is expiring. In case of re-election such men
therefore continue to serve without intermission. In this connection
the question has often been asked: Should those who are re-elected
also be reinstalled? Synod of 1928 declared that installation in such
cases was not only desirable, but also proper. (Art. 85.) Synod
had good reasons for assuming this position. When our Elders and
Deacons are elected they are chosen and appointed for a definite
period of years, in most Churches for two or three years. When office-
bearers so elected are installed they are installed for a definite num-
ber of years; they assume the duties of office by solemn promises for
that same definite number of years. Consequently, reinstallation is
in place.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

107

ARTICLE XXIII

The office of the Elders, in addition to what uxls said in
Article 16 to be their duty in common with the Minister of
the Word, is to take heed that the Ministers, together with their
fellow-Elders and the Deacons, faithfully discharge their office ,
and both before and after the Lord's Supper, as time and cir-
cumstances may demand, for the edification of the Churches to
visit the fa/milies of the Congregation , in order particularly to
comfort and instruct the members, and also to exhort others in
respect to the Christian Religion.

THE DUTIES OF ELDERS

This article gives us a brief statement of the work of the Elders.
The Wezelian Convention (1568, pre-cursor of the regular Synods)
already gave a rather lengthy description of the Elder’s tasks. But
seemingly the Synod of Gravenhage, 1586, considers this description
too detailed for Church Order purposes. This Synod at least gave us
the brief redaction of Article 23 as we have it today.

1. Government and discipline*

Article 16 indicates the duties included in the office of the ministry.
The last of these duties enumerated in Article 16 is also ascribed to
Elders. It reads as follows: “. . . . and finally, with the Elders, to
exercise church discipline and to see to it that everything is done
decently and in good order.” We considered the significance of this
provision when Article 16 was under consideration, and shall, there-
fore, not repeat what has already been said. And the matter of
discipline as such will be considered at length as we discuss Articles
71 to 80.

Does the administration of finances, building and grounds, etc., be-
long to the domain of the Elders? Yes, inasmuch as the government
of the Church is the task of the Elders and administrative duties are
indeed governmental duties. This however, does not mean that the
Consistory may not appoint a finance committee or helpers from
amongst able and worthy members of the Church. The appointment
of committees for various duties which concern the temporal interests
of the Churches should be encouraged. It will give the Elders more
time for the all important spiritual phase of their charge and will
bring the work of the Churches somewhat closer to our membership.
The practice here suggested is in wide usage in the larger Reformed
Churches of Holland.

However, all such helpers and committees should be appointed di-
rectly by the Consistories for the term of one year only and they
should know themselves strictly accountable to the Consistories.

Should the Elders have a specific charge for every task or bit of
work which they do in the congregation? As far as the work of
discipline is concerned, each Elder may and should admonish erring
sheep of the flock as time and occasion may demand, but no Elder
may bar a member from the use of the sacraments upon his own
authority and initiative. Membership rights may be withdrawn either
as a temporary measure or decisively only upon concerted, united
action of the whole body of Elders. But without a doubt the indi-
vidual Elders may and must do a great deal of pastoral work upon
their own initiative just as the Ministers do a great deal of pastoral
work without awaiting a specific charge from the Consistory. By all

108

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

means let our Elders diligently call on the sick, the erring, the un-
faithful, the mourning, etc.

2. Supervision over fellow-office-bearers.

Supervision over office-bearers in Episcopal Churches (Roman
Catholic, Methodist, etc.) is exercised in the first place by superior
officers, Bishops, Cardinals, etc. With us all officers stand on par as
to their official authority. Consequently, inasmuch as supervision in
this imperfect and partial dispensation of the Church is highly neces-
sary, all supervision amongst office-bearers must be mutual. Each
must oversee, supervise the other, (cf. Acts 20:28.) “Take heed unto
yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made
you bishops (overseers) . . .”

This supervision covers, in the first place, doctrine and life, as
well as the discharge of one’s office. In doctrine one must be sound,
in conduct exemplary and beyond reproach, and as an office-bearer
faithful and diligent withal.

The Elders should give particular heed to the Ministers of the
Gospel. It is of prime importance that these preach and teach cor-
rectly and effectively, and that their labors are performed in all
faithfulness. But the other officers in the Church must also be true
and faithful if the cause of God is to flourish. Error, disloyalty and
neglect may not be tolerated in any office-bearer. That would be con-
trary to God’s Word and would undermine the very foundations of
the Churches.

What mode of procedure must an Elder follow when he finds that
one of his fellow office-bearers does not faithfully discharge his office ?
He should confer with him personally and in a brotherly spirit. A
personal conference may accomplish the end sought, or perchance
prove that the fear entertained or the objection cherished rested upon
a misunderstanding. The promotion of good will and common sense
itself prescribes this first step. Moreover, this procedure, though not
prescribed by Christ in Matt. 18:14 (for this passage does not speak
of mutual supervision amongst office-bearers), nevertheless finds its
analogy in this passage.

If after a personal conference the objections remain, the aggrieved
Elder should bring the matter to the Consistory for its consideration.
If the matter be urgent and weighty such should be done at first op-
portunity. If less urgent, the matter should be mentioned at the
time of “censura morum,” i.e., mutual censure pertaining to morals,
or Christian censure as it is termed in Article 81. This mutual cen-
sure, according to Article 81, is to be held before each celebration
of the Lord’s Supper. Consequently at least four times a year.

As stands to reason a flagrant and public sin, making the guilty
one worthy of suspension or deposition from office, may require im-
mediate action by the Consistory.

3. Home-visitation work.

In the third place Article 23 charges Elders with home-visitation
work. The Churches of the Reformation did not favor the Roman
practice of auricular and sacramental confession, i.e., the acknowl-
edgment of sin to a priest in order to obtain forgiveness through him.
They found no Scriptural warrant for the practice, and knew its many
evil attendants. But our fathers did believe in personal supervision
by the overseers and personal consultation by the overseers in order
to instruct, correct and comfort each one according to his individual
need. Christ Himself spoke not only to large groups of listeners, but

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

109

also engaged in personal work. Confer the instance of Nicodemus,
the Samaritan woman, Peter at the time of his restoration, etc. And
the Apostles enjoin personal work by word and example. Psycho-
logically also personal work, conducted by the duly appointed office-
bearers, is altogether desirable and necessary. Now our fathers
believed that this work could best be carried on through periodic
visits on the part of the office-bearers at the homes of the parishioners.
To this day our Churches have maintained this practice, although
most Protestant Churches have discontinued it, no doubt to their loss.
We may safely regard the practice of holding periodic supervisory
visits with all our members at their own homes, gathered in family
groups, as one of our denominational strongholds. Needless to say,
this institution will utterly fail us, if and in as far as it should de-
teriorate into a bare and formal custom. But conducted in the spirit
and with the intent of the institution, it will continue to be a source
of great good.

Why does Article 23 provide that home visitation work must
be carried on “both before and after the Lord’s Supper” ? Our fathers
were no doubl convinced that a personal conference by the Elders
with the members of their Church concerning the significance of the
Lord’s Table, and the attitude of the heart in which they should come
to communion, would be highly beneficial. Likewise that a personal
conference on the benefits derived from attendance at the Lord’s
Table and the duties involved in the privilege, would also be of great
value. They had seen the ruinous effects of mere formalism in the
corrupt Church which they had left behind. They were anxious to
promote true spirituality in the Reformed, liberated Churches.

But in the second place it must be remembered that home-visitation
as established by the Reformed Churches took the place of the Roman
confession before the priest. None are permitted to go to mass unless
they have been to confession just previous to the celebration of the
mass. It may be that our fathers stipulated visits before and after
the celebration of the Lord’s Supper because of this Roman Catholic
usage. We merely suggest the connection, inasmuch as we are not
able to verify it at this time. This much is sure, inasmuch as a good
many Church members had recently left the Roman Church, and
were not well founded in the truth, repeated instruction and constant
conferences would be very necessary. It should also be noted that
the very first “major assembly” of the Reformed Churches of the
Netherlands, the Wezelian Convention, 1568, ruled that home-visitation
should be conducted by the Elders every week. Today as we know,
loyal Roman Catholics still go to confession every week.

The visits under consideration must be made furthermore “as time
and circumstances may demand.” Today home-visitation calls are
made annually in all of our Churches. The same condition prevails
in the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands.

What is the specific purpose of home-visitation according to Article
23? In the first place “the edification of the Churches” is men-
tioned. The Churches must be edified, that is builded, strengthened,
increased. To edify simply means to build up. The cause of God rep-
resented by our Churches must grow and increase. His Kingdom
must come. This end may be accomplished, under God’s blessing,
through the preaching of the Word, the teaching of the youth, but
also through periodic visits on the part of the office-bearers with the
Church members in their homes.

Secondly Article 23 stipulates under this point “in order parti-
cularly to comfort and instruct the members.” Comfort and instruc-

110

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

tion were greatly needed during the youth period of the Reformed
Churches. But we still need comfort and instruction. But this com-
fort and instruction which God's Word offers so abundantly for every
need and circumstance of life must be individualized through personal
contact and conversation.

The present reading of this article is the redaction of 1586 and
constitutes an abbreviation or summary of what the Wezelian Con-
vention had formulated on this score, and which in part reads as fol-
lows: “They (the Elders) shall faithfully investigate whether they
(the Church members) manifest themselves uprightly in walk and
conduct, in the duties of godliness, in the faithful instruction of their
households in the matter of family prayers, (morning and evening
prayers) and such like matters; they shall admonish them to these
duties with consideration, but also in all seriousness and according
to conditions and circumstances; they shall admonish them to stead-
fastness, or strengthen them to patience, or spur them on to a serious
minded fear of God; such as need comfort and admonition they shall
comfort and admonish, and if need be they shall report a matter to
their fellow Elders, who together with them are appointed to exercise
discipline; and besides these matters they shall correct that which
can be corrected according to the gravity of the sin committed; nor
shall they neglect, each one in his own district, to encourage them to
send their children to catechism.”

This designation is too long, as was soon felt, (1586), but who would
care to deny that it contains a wealth of valuable suggestive material
even for this day and age?

Does home-visitation also belong to the task of the Ministers ? Not
in the first place. In the first place it belongs to the office of those
that are called to be overseers, the Elders. Consequently it is not even
mentioned in Article 16, which indicates the task of Ministers. But
isasfar as Ministers are teaching-elders, (cf. Form of Installation),
and in so far Elders, the work of Elders, (government, discipline, etc.),
also falls to them, though not primarily.

As much as their primary duties allow, Ministers should do per-
sonal work through home-visitation, visiting of the sick, the afflicted,
and the aged, calling on delinquents, etc. All this may be included
under what Article 16 terms “to watch over the Congregation.” More-
over, effective ministerial work also requires close contact with the
Congregation through personal work. But again, primarily, Ministers
must preach and teach. And that, if they are to do it correctly and
effectively, will require nearly all their time. And primarily home-
visitation, etc., is the work of the regular Elders.

4. The exhortation of others.

This provision was incorporated in this article when the Reformed
Churches were the official Churches of the Netherlands. The Re-
formed Churches, and these only, had official recognition of the gov-
ernment. Consequently all people inhabiting a certain district were
considered to fall under the jurisdiction of the Reformed Church of
that district. The office-bearers had duties toward all, though not all
held membership with the Church. And although this conception and
situation changed in course of time, yet the Churches in the Nether-
lands, and also our own (1914), have maintained this provision.

To be sure the Church has a duty toward those that are without.
The gospel should reach the de-Christianized masses round about the
Church. The Church must seek to win back that which was lost. God's
covenant claims they must hear and God’s saving love must be pre-
sented to them.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

111

Now Article 23 stipulates that especially the Elders shall exhort
the outsiders and ungodly to the Christian religion. This is significant
indeed and often entirely overlooked. Every Church should expect its
overseers, as far as possible, to oversee in the name of Christ, also
those who as yet do not recognize their jurisdiction, and who as wan-
dering sheep will not heed the voice of the shepherd but must be won
back to the fold. Or, inasfar as these ungodly and perishing souls are
direct descendants of pagan ancestors, (of which there are strictly
speaking but very few in our country) they also must be exhorted to
seek after God in Christ Jesus.

All this is in full harmonv with a declaration of Synod 1932, which
reads as follows: “The rampant neopaganism of our day and land re-
quires that every one of our churches, whether alone or in collabora-
tion with a neighboring church or churches, enter upon evangelistic
activities. It also requires that, if possible, in addition to the regular
pastor, the church or churches engage an ordained minister especially
for this evangelistic work.” Acts 1932, Art. 25. And the fact that
nearly all of our Synods have dealt with the subject of evangelization
and home mission proves that our Churches are alive to the "reat need
of this all important and challenging phase of Kingdom work.

ARTICLE XXIV

The Deacons shall be chosen, approved and installed in the
same manner as was stated concerning the Elders.

THE APPOINTMENT OF DEACONS

This brief article makes a general reference to the stipulations of
Article 22. Article 22 regulates the election of Elders. Three ele-
ments are included in this election: election proper, approbation, and
installation. These same elements are also mentioned in the present
article. Inasmuch as these matters received consideration under
Article 22, we shall not repeat now what has already been said. But
we shall briefly note three matters which deserve consideration, name-
ly: The essential character of the Deacon’s office; the qualification for
this office; the matter of deaconesses.

1. Essential character of the Deacon’s office.

What is the essential character of the Deacon’s office? In answer
to this question the origin of the names “Deacon” and “Diaconate”
may be considered first of all. These words are derived from the
Greek word Diakonos, and this word signifies one who serves or min-
isters. In general it may be said that in Scripture the word Diakonos
refers either to the ministry of the Word or the ministry of mercy.
Confer Matt. 25:44; Mark 1:13; Luke 8:3; Acts 1:27; Acts 6:4; II Cor.
4:1; Col. 4:17. In all these passages the word Diakonos or a word
derived from it is used.

To-day we still speak of the servants of the Word as Ministers of
the Gospel. As a rule they are simply called Ministers. These office-
bearers, on the other hand, who in a special way are required to show
mercy, are never called by this name, although the word Deacon
(Diakonos) signifies a minister. The name Deacon, therefore, tells us
that he is a minister, a minister of mercy.

112

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

The establishment of the Diaconate should also be considered when
one inquires after the essential character of the Deacon’s office. The
institution or origin of the Deacon’s office we find recorded in Acts
6:1-6. From this passage it is clear that the work of mercy was some-
what neglected in Jerusalem’s Church because the time of the Apostles
was wholly taken up by the ministry of the Word and the government
of the Church. By the guidance of the Holy Spirit seven men were
elected and appointed as Deacons or ministers of mercy. This distinct
office was also introduced in the other Churches, as frequent mention
of the office in the epistles indicates. See, for instance, Phil 1:1.

But most important for the determination of the true nature of this
office, is the question: In what special way does the Deacon represent
Christ, the Head of His Church?

Christ, let us remember, is our chief Prophet, our only High Priest,
and our eternal King (cf. H. Catechism, Lord’s Day XII).

Now this three-fold office of our representative before God was
typified in the 0. T. Church in its prophets, priests, and kings. When
the real Prophet, Priest, and King came these types ceased. Never-
theless, Christ did ordain through His Spirit three permanent offices
for His N. T. Church namely, Ministers of the Word, Deacons, and
Elders, representing Christ respectively as Prophet, Priest, and King.

Deacons are, therefore, representatives of Christ as the merciful
High Priest They are ministers of God’s mercy and love in Christ
Jesus. There is not a single passage in the N. T. which aims to give
us a complete characterization of the office of Deacon. Neither Acts
6 nor I Tim. 3:8-10 does this. But the fact that the Deacons are
Christ’s special representatives in His work of mercy in fundamental
and all-important, and should govern us when we seek to determine the
essential character of the Deacon’s office.

Already in the second century after Christ the character of the
Diaconate was severely corrupted and changed. Originally the
Churches were ruled by bodies of Elders or Presbyteries. But during
the century mentioned above a few of the Elders assumed the position
of Bishops, and the other Elder as well as the Deacons became sub-
servient to them. Eventually the Bishops occupied a place compar-
able to the positions of High Priests during the O. T. dispensation and
the Elders were regarded to be ordinary priests, whereas the Deacons
were looked upon as Levites, who were expected to assist the priests.
At first the Deacons still assisted in the work of mercy but when, in
course of time, the work of mercy was absorbed by the various orders
of monks, the Deacons’ office was wholly gobbed of its rightful and
precious heritage. The Deacon now assisted at the ministration of the
Word and of the Sacraments. The serving of the table mentioned in
Acts 6:2, so the Roman Church ruled, referred to the serving of the
sacramental tables in spite of the fact that the reference is clearly
to the work of charity and mercy as practiced in the early Church at
Jerusalem.

Luther did not restore the Deacon to his rightful and God-given
position. The Lutheran Church left the work of mercy to the civil
government, and the name Deacon was later applied to those who acted
as assistant pastors in large cities. But John Calvin restored the
work of Christian mercy to the Deacon, and the Deacon to this work
of mercy. Calvin even distinguished between two types of Deacons.
To some he assigned the work of caring for the poor and to others the
care of the sick, i.e. nursing the sick and infirm.

Eventually only the former type was perpetuated in the Reformed
Churches of Germany, France, Scotland, and Holland. Not as if the

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

113

Reformed Churches ever felt that the sick and the aged, and mentally
deficient might be neglected, but their care, though often sponsored
directly by the Churches through their Deacons was often left to pri-
vate Christian initiative, supported and encouraged by the Churches.

2. Qualifications for this office.

The qualifications for the Deacon’s office may be gleaned particularly
from the passages of Holy Writ already referred to, namely. Acts
6:1-7 and II Tim. 3:8-12.

Acts 6:3 reads as follows: “Look ye out therefore, brethren, from
among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom,
whom we may appoint over this business.” This text mentions three
essential qualifications which must be present in those holding the
Deacon’s office. They must be: of good report, i.e., men held in esteem,
especially by their Christian associates, because of their exemplary
Christian conduct; full of the Spirit, i.e., men full of the Spirit’s conse-
cration and love, so essential to one dispensing the mercy of Christ;
full of wisdom, i.e. men having a large amount of good judgment, so
that they may help and sustain the right parties in the right way.

And in I Tim. 3:8-12 we read: “Deacons in like manner must be
grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of
filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And
let these also first be proved; then let them serve as deacons if they
be blameless. Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers,
temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be husbands of one wife,
ruling their children and their own houses well.” Briefly stated we
may summarize the requirements contained in this passage as follows:
Deacons must not be shallow and insincere, but serious minded; they
must not be undependable and two-faced, but steadfast and honest;
they must be temperate, even shunning the use of much wine; not
stingy nor apt to accept bribes; they must live according to the life of
faith, graciously revealed unto them, in such a way that their con-
science need not accuse them constantly; they must be men not sud-
denly and prematurely called to office, but tried and observed and
found worthy; they must be men free from polygamy (Calvin’s in-
terpretation: Men having more than one wife, while converted were
seemingly not forced to forsake their additional wives, but for the
sake of the example and because of their abnormal situations such
could not serve as office-bearers); they must be men governing their
own households according to God’s Word.

Sometimes it has been claimed that one who is hard-pressed finan-
cially and who may be in need of assistance on the part of the Church
is really disqualified to serve as Deacon. But this is merely a con-
ception of man, for which we find no support in the Bible. It might
even be contended that, other things being equal, one who is himself
hard-pressed is by that very fact better able to sympathize with a
needv brother, than he who has never felt the pinch of poverty.

3. The matter of deaconesses.

It cannot be proven from Holy Writ that so-called deaconesses were
actually called and ordained to office, just as the Deacons were. I Tim.
3:11, quoted above, does indicate that women had a share in the work
of mercy practiced by the early Churches. But in the absence of any
indication that women were ever inducted into office we conclude that
these deaconesses were appointed to assist the Deacons in an unofficial
capacity.

The Wezelian Convention, 1568, judged that it might be well to ap-

114

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

point worthy women to the office under discussion. Evidently, the
Convention did not mean that women should be ordained as Deacon-
esses, but that they should be appointed to assist the Deacons. For in
1581 the Classis of Wezel asked the Synod of Middelburg, 1581,
whether it would not be “advisable to re-institute the office of deacon-
esses.” But this Synod answered in the negative, “because of various
inconveniences which might follow.” It did however declare that in
times of wide-spread epidemics or much sickness, which called for
nurse duties which the Deacons could not perform with propriety, the
Deacons should call in the assistance of their wives, or other suitable
women.

And thus the Reformed Churches never ordained deaconesses. Never-
theless women can do excellent and indispensable work as assistants
to the Deacons. Neither the O.T. nor the N.T. knows of offices pe-
culiar to women or open to men and women alike. God’s plan as re-
vealed in Holy Writ, knows of no women as officials in God’s Church.
Nevertheless also in this respect the woman is often a helpmeet for
man. Women assisted Jesus, and also the Apostles, even in the
prophetic work of the Church. So also our women can do wonderful
service through our various Church organizations and if need be, in
our Catechism classes, as well as in our Sunday schools. Thus also she
can definitely assist the Deacons in the discharge of their duties. In
our evangelization work at home or abroad she can take an active and
useful part. And, as stands to reason, in non-ecclesiastical spheres she
can occupy a place of Christian leadership, particularly through and
for agencies definitely Christian, such as our Christian day schools.

ARTICLE XXV

The office peculiar to the Deacons is diligently to collect alms
and other contributions of charity, and after mutual counsel ,
faithfully and diligently to distribute the same to the poor as
their needs may require it; to visit and comfort the distressed
and to exercise care that the alms are not misused; of which
they shall render an account in Consistory, and also ( if anyone
desires to be present ) to the Congregation, at such a time as
the Consistory may see fit.

THE DUTIES OF DEACONS

Article 25 speaks of “the office peculiar to the Deacons.” Here
again the Church Order does not refer to the essence of the Deacon’s
office, but rather to the labors which Scripture attributes to Deacons.
Five matters are mentioned in this article. They are: the diligent col-
lection of alms and other contributions of charity; the faithful and
diligent distribution of alms and other contributions of charity; the
visiting and comforting of those that are in distress; the exercise of
care against the misuse of alms; the rendering of periodic reports
to the Consistory and Congregation concerning collections and dis-
tributions made. We shall consider each of these.

1. Collection of alms and other contributions of charity.

First of all a word regarding the difference between “alms” and
“other contributions of charity.” Strictly speaking, there is no dif-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

115

ference. Alms, as the Dutch “aalmoezen,” are gifts of charity. The
word has a general meaning. The English word as well as its Dutch
equivalent stands related to a Greek word signifying, “to be merciful.”
Up to the year 1581 the Church Order spoke only of alms, and did not
refer to “other contributions of charity.” The Synod of Middelburg,
1581, speaks of “de aalmoessen, en andere armengoederen.” Now it
should not be overlooked that “other contributions of charity” is not a
literal translation of “andere armengoederen.” The Dutch expression
armengoederen is used to indicate legacies and other gifts in the form
of real estate property given to the Diaconates for the benefit of the
poor. Our translation, however, rather makes us think of gifts in the
form of food, clothing, etc.

It may also be noted that the expression “contributions of charity,”
is a rather general one, also employed by the world at large. How-
ever, in Article 25 it has a restricted significance. It does not merely
signify “good-will contributions,” but rather contributions made in
the first place for God’s sake, motivated by Christian love.

Deacons then must collect and solicit these moneys and gifts for the
poor. In times of special stress gifts in the form of food, clothing,
etc., are very valuable. These are most conveniently solicited and
collected on week-days. Gifts in the form of money should be collect-
ed in the first place at the regular Sunday services, of which services
gifts of gratitude are an integral part. When these gifts are in-
adequate the Deacons should ask the Consistories to make the situation
known to the Church. The preaching of the Word should also help
make the congregation faithful in its contribution toward the needy
poor. At times the Deacons may find it necessary to collect gifts of
money from members in the Church who are blessed above the
average.

Years ago the benevolence offering for the poor was taken at the
doors as the congregation was being dismissed. Our present method is
doubtlessly more appropriate. Bringing our gifts of love and grati-
tude to the Lord should be more than an appendix to the service. It is
an actual part of the service.

Our gifts must be given from the right motive and conscientiously,
not to be seen and praised of men. Christ said: “But when thou doest
alms, let not thy left hand know what they right hand doeth: that
thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret
shall recompense thee,” Matt. 6:3, 4. From these considerations some
have preferred not to use open collection plates as are quite generally
in use in our Churches today, but rather pocket-like receptacles, a
convenient type of which are still on the market today. We fail to
see, however, that our open collection plates greatly promote the sins
against which Christ warns in Matthew 6. The possibilities at least
are very limited, and can never be ruled out entirely, no matter what
type of receptacle may be used.

It is altogether proper for our Diaconates to urge able relatives of
needy poor to do their Christian duty first of all. Parents that are
able to do so are in duty bound to help needy children though these
have long since left the parental fireside. And children likewise should
be anxious to help their needy parents. This all is so obvious that
argument is unnecessary. And Deacons should not permit delinquency
on this score to go unheeded and unreported.

Neither would it be out of place for Deacons to solicit employment
for their needy poor, if it appears that assistance to secure work is
needed. Not that our Diaconates must stand ready to answer every-
one’s beck and call in this respect. But in exceptional cases an of-

116

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ficial request from one of our Church Diaconates might do what mere
individual effort failed to accomplish. In such a case Deacons ou*rht
to act. Prevention is better than a cure we sa'\ So also in this case,
termination is better than continuation.

Money-raising schemes, such as bazaars, suppers, etc., should never
be resorted to by our representatives of Christ as merciful High
Priest.

In extreme circumstances it may be necessary to seek government
aid. Conditions, for instance, during recent years may have forced our
Deacons to advise needy brethren to apply for county aid, or these
conditions may have caused some of our Diaconates to accept govern-
ment aid offered them by government agencies in the form of food and
clothing. But these situations are never ideal. The Lord’s poor should
be relieved by the Lord’s own people, from love and gratitude toward
Him. To help relieve Churches in great need, also during days of
economic depressions, all of our Churches should maintain a goodly
surplus in their poor funds, so that the strong and the favored can
come to the assistance of those that are in distress. In our care for
the poor we are often too individualistic. We should feel the tie that
binds us together in Christ and help each other, rather than permit
poverty stricken Churches to appeal to the government for aid. It
is true that as tax-payers we are helping to create the funds with
which the government supports its indigent subjects. But this is
merely our duty as citizens. Over and above this, if at all possible,
we should support our own needy, so that they need not depend upon
the world or upon the government.

2. The distribution.

Why does the Church Order stipulate that distribution must be made
“faithfully and diligently”?

For more than one reason. In the first place, the Deacon’s work is
very much the Lord’s work. And in the Lord’s work we should always
be faithful — true and loyal — to the charge committed, and diligent —
zealous and prompt — as well. Moreover, the work to which our Dea-
cons are called is the Lord’s work of mercy. Unfaithfulness and
laxity are altogether out of place where mercy is needed. Suffering
and want must be relieved faithfully and promptly. Furthermore,
again and again the Deacons will find that the need which calls for
help is rather urgent inasmuch as many do not call for aid until dire
want compels them. Consequently “God’s Ministers of Mercy” must
be on the look-out constantly and be ready to act with promptness.

The Deacons should bring their gifts to those in need as friends of
Christ to friends of Christ, standing on par with them. Attitudes of
superiority on the part of the Deacons would be altogether out of
place. And therefore, under ordinary circumstances the gifts of Chris-
tian charity to the Lord’s needy should be given directly to the parties
concerned in their own homes. Ordinarily they should not be required
to call for them at stipulated hours, as was sometimes done in former
years.

According to which standard must distribution be made ? The
Church Order says that distribution must be made to the poor “as
their needs may require it.” The daily needs of the indigent in the
midst of the Church must be supplied. That which ordinary comfort
requires must be given. This is according to Biblical example: “And
distribution was made unto each, according as anyone had need,” Acts
4:35. None of the needy should suffer lack where such can be avoided,
though it is also true that the Church should not give for needless

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

117

luxuries. If times are hard and consequently the needy poor numer-
ous, the Deacons must do all they can to meet each one’s need, but
they may be forced to reduce their distribution below the bare mini-
mum proportionately. But never should this be done until the Church
has done its utmost to meet its responsibility toward the Lord’s poor
fully. And needless to say. in the spirit of Christian mercy, none
should ever begrudge a needy brother or sister a little more than he
or she actually needs. Liberality toward our poor should never be
frowned upon, but always encouraged.

What is the significance of the phrase “after mutual consent”? Our
Deacons are not allowed to act independently, as individuals in the
collection and distribution of gifts. The needs of those that require
support, temporarily or more permanently, should be discussed at a
Deacons’ Meeting, so that they together, upon due investigation or
trustworthy information may decide what is to be done. “After mutual
counsel” the Deacons shall thus make distribution. This does not
mean th,at in special emergencies one or two Deacons may never act
independently and instantly. For instance, sickness or accidents may
call emergency situations into existence and may require instant re-
lief. But such cases will be the exceptions, and should always be re-
ported in full at the very next Deacons’ Meeting for the approval, or
else disapproval, of the whole body. And let us not forget, the
exception does not alter the rule. Some Churches have an emergency
committee to which emergency cases are referred. Much can be said
in favor of such committees.

Mutual counsel is necessary also because our Deacons administer
mercy in name of the whole congregation. Now a number of office-
bearers acting in unison give better expression to this principle than
individual and independent action could do. Moreover, mutual counsel
greatly reduces the possibilities of arbitrariness and faulty decisions.
In the multitude of counselors there is wisdom.

3. Visiting and comforting thosie in distress.

Why does the Church Order specify that Deacons shall “visit and
comfort the distressed” ? Because our Deacons represent, as has been
said before, Christ in the dispensation of His mercy. Our Diaconates
are therefore far more than committees for relief work. They must
relieve want and distress, but not in a mere functional way, as the
county or state would do, but with a heart of sympathy and love. And
they must give not merely with a humanitarian sympathy and love,
but with the sympathy and love of Christ Himself. This requires in-
terest and a personal, warm touch which only a personal visit can
convey. Moreover, sometimes the distressed may not need money,
food, or clothing nearly as much as assistance in some other form,
such as sick care, or words of comfort from Holy Writ. Our Form
for the installations of Elders and Deacons very appropriately states
that one of the tasks of our Deacons is to relieve “the distressed both
with kindly deeds and words of consolation and cheer from Scripture.”
This phase of the Deacon’s work is very important and very beautiful.
But to a large extent this all-important work of Christ as merciful
High-Priest is forgotten and neglected. Some Churches seem to prefer
young men as Deacons, especially if they have some business ability.
Spiritual qualifications and Christian experience, which are certainly
very essential for one who shall have to “visit and comfort the dis-
tressed,” are forgotten all too generally.

118

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

4. Care against misuse of alms.

Regarding this rather difficult and delicate matter it is impossible to
lay down a general rule which our Deacons can just apply in a uni-
form and press-the-button fashion. We live in a world of sin and we
deal with imperfect men and women, — also in the Church. Now,
nearly all who draw from congregational poor funds do so only under
stress of circumstances. They will, of course, exercise great care not
to misuse that which comes to them by way of Christian charity from
the Church of God. But some that are in want and distress are, to say
the least, poor managers, if not wilfully careless. Now the Church
may not condone the appropriation of the Lord’s benevolence money
for unnecessary luxuries or wasteful expenditures. And so if there is
just cause for suspicion on the part of the Deacons on this score, they
should confer with the parties concerned, and sympathetically but
firmly tell them that the practice in question can not continue. If it
does continue, support should be given in kind, that is, in the form of
food, clothing, etc. However, our Deacons must never play the part of
“inquisitors.” The God-given responsibilities and liberties of brothers
and sisters in Christ should ever be respected by them. They must, in
the spirit of Christian charity, avoid all suspicious questioning and
needless wounding. Only when necessity compels them should they
go beyond an ordinary investigation.

5. Rendering periodic reports.

Our Diaconates are, under normal circumstances, separate bodies,
but never independent bodies. In many of our Churches however they
always meet with the Elders as a Consistory, and at these meetings all
the diaconal affairs are discussed and decided upon. But normally, ac-
cording to the set-up of our Church Order, our Deacons have their
separate meetings, at which they deliberate and also decide and act.
But all their decisions and actions must be reported to the Consistory
for approval. Reformed church polity knows only one ruling body in
the Church and that is the Consistory, ideally consisting of the ruling
and teaching Elders, or, putting it in our present terminology, con-
sisting of Ministers and Elders. The government of the Church has
been entrusted by Christ to the bishops, shepherds, or Elders. Con-
sequently they also, according to Biblical precept and example, have
supervision over the service of the Word and Sacraments by the Min-
isters and over the service of mercy by the Deacons. The Church
Order accords our Diaconates a certain amount of independent activity,
which should not be ignored, neglected, and infringed upon. But the
unity of the Church and of the various offices in Christ as head of the
Church requires that they should submit regular reports of their work
to the Consistory for approval.

But the concluding provision of Article 25 also provides that a
report shall be rendered to the congregation. Why so? Not that the
congregation may give official approval or disapproval, for the Consis-
tory is the only ruling body in and for the congregation. However
the work of the Deacons is, after all, not the work of the personnel of
the Diaconate, nor of the Consistory, but it is the work of the whole
congregation. When our Deacons perform deeds of mercy or give gifts
of Christian charity then the Church as a whole does this through
them in the name of Christ. Conseouently, the congregation should
be informed. And the Deacons should stand in close touch with the
membership of the Church. Therefore they should report to the con-
gregation periodically under the direction of the Consistory. Of course,
these reports should be general. Names and amounts should be re-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

119

ported to the Consistory but not to the congregation. That would be
out of keeping with the spirit of Christian love. Moreover, the congre-
gation is not interested in names and individual amounts, but rather
in the fact that its work of mercy is properly carried on; that the
needy poor, and the widows and orphans, and the sick and distressed
are properly supplied, provided for and visited.

Beyond a doubt this provision of our Church Order is a very excel-
lent ope. But as many of its excellent and wise provisions have fallen
into disuse to a large extent, so also this one. To our hurt and the
hurt of our ecclesiastical work of mercy no doubt.

ARTICLE XXVI

In places where others are devoting themselves to the care of
the poor , the Deacons shall seek a mutual understanding with
them to the end that the alms may all the better be distributed
among those who have greatest need. Moreover , they shall
make it possible for the poor to make use of institutions of
mercy , and to that end they shall request the Board of Directors
of such institutions to keep in close touch with them. It is also
desirable that the Deaconates assist and consult one another ,
especially in caring for the poor in such institutions.

DIACONAL CO-OPERATION

In this article the Church Order provides first of all for contacts be-
tween our diaconates and other agencies caring for those in want;
secondly for contacts between our diaconates and Christian institu-
tions of mercy; lastly, for mutual co-operation and assistance on the
part of various diaconates.

1. The historical background of Article 26.

When our Synod of 1914 adopted the present reading of our Church
Order it merely accepted an up-to-date rendering of the Church Order
of the great Synod of Dort, 1618-19. The Church Order was garbed
in present day Dutch, (largely modeled after the rendering accepted
by the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands in 1905) and obsolete
provisions applicable to conditions no longer extant were replaced by
rulings which time and circumstances now require.

Article 26 as it had stood since 1618-19 was one of the articles that
was well-nigh entirely out of date, especially as to the terminology
employed. The original article reads as follows: “De Diakenen zullen
ter plaatse waar huiszittenmeesters of andere aalmoezeniers zijn, van
dezen begeeren goede correspondents met hen te willen houden,
teneinde de almoezen te beter uitgedeeld mogen worden onder degenen
die meest gebrek hebben.”

Amongst many other things the Reformation of the 16th Century
also restored the Diaconate as a divine and Biblical institution. In
the Roman Church, Deacons were and are still subservient helpers to
the priests. In the Reformed Churches the Deacons again became
ministers of mercy, representatives of Christ as merciful High-Priest.

Now the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands very logically
claimed that the possessions and moneys which were originally given
to the Churches in their deformed condition for the alleviation of pov-

120

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

erty and suffering, should go to them and their Deacons and not to the
government agencies for relief work. But not in every case did the
government agree. In many instances the government wanted to ad-
minister all poor relief work. Not so much as a matter of Christian
mercy, but more as a matter of state business. The Churches, how-
ever, notwithstanding the close connection between Church and State
at this time, everywhere instituted the office of the Deacons and in-
sisted on maintaining their own poor relief work, and that not merely
in the secular or humanitarian sense, but in the Biblical sense of show-
ing mercy to Christ’s own in His stead.

But the government also appointed its poor relief agencies. It was
soon discovered that certain parties would receive aid through the
Church of their locality and also from the local government agency,
whereas others suffered from insufficient support. To avoid needless
duplication and to conserve funds for necessary relief, the Churches
decided that the Deacons should request “goede correspondents”
(literally translated, “good correspondence”) from the government
agencies for poor relief. No doubt they meant by “good correspond-
ence” that each should report to the other to whom aid was extended.
Let us remember in this connection that the tie between the govern-
ment and the Churches was a very close one in former years. The
Reformed Churches of the Netherlands were at that time the only
church organization officially recognized as such, and even to a certain
extent sponsored by the government. Especially the Church Orders
prior to the great Synod of Dort exemplify this close connection
abundantly.

2. Contacts with other agencies.

What is the significance of the first provision of Article 20 as it
now reads? Today we still find that poor relief is extended through
government agencies. Moreover, we have our Red Cross and a host of
more local charitable organizations as a rule. These agencies regularly
or in times of special stress extend the helping hand to those in want,
regardless of Church affiliations. Now to avoid needless extension of
help Article 26 provides that our Diaconates are to request “good cor-
respondence” (Dutch rendering, 1914) with these agencies. The of-
ficial English translation speaks of a “mutual understanding.” This
term is no doubt stronger than its. Dutch equivalent. The Dutch
rendering, also in the light of history, merely acknowledges the fact
that some of our needy Church members at times receive aid from
agencies outside of the Church. It does not commit itself in favor of
this situation, not even by implication. From our English redaction it
might be inferred that it is the position of our Churches that secular
support of our Church members is perfectly proper and normal. How-
ever, it is the position of all loyal Reformed Churches that the Church
of Christ must fully take care of its own needy. Needy and afflicted
children of God should never be compelled to seek aid from the world,
but should be assisted by their own brothers and sisters in Christ.
That is the Biblical rule. That is the ideal. And only when dire
necessity forces us should we deviate from this rule and ideal. Con-
sequently we would prefer “adequate correspondence,” “necessary
contacts” or some kindred term to the present “mutual understanding.”

Or better still, we would prefer to eliminate this whole provision.
In its original form it dates back to a semi-State Church condition
regulating somewhat an irregular state of affairs. For our condition
and situation the present provision is either not necessary, or impos-
sible of adequate execution, in view of the numerous agencies which

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

121

are engaged in relief work. And as the provision stands it obscures a
principle, namely that the Church is fully responsible for its own
needy. If in times of special stress some of our people must seek and
accept aid from other agencies, then common sense will tell our
Deacons that they must avoid duplication by all legitimate means. We
really need no Church Order provision for this.

3. Contacts with institutions of mercy.

The second provision of Article 26, stipulating that the Deacons
“shall make it possible for the poor to make use of institutions of
mercy,” etc., as well as the balance of this article, is an addition of our
Christian Reformed Churches. The original article contains nothing
of this. The Reformed Churches of Holland, which accepted a revi-
sion of the Church Order in 1905, left Article 26 unchanged. Conse-
quently this second provision of Article 26 and what follows it, is
not found in the Church Order of Holland.

The significance of this ruling is obvious to all who know our peo-
ple and their activities somewhat. During the last quarter of a cen-
tury our people have had a very prominent part in erecting two in-
stitutions for the Christian care of the mentally abnormal, and one
for the Christian care of tubercular patients. Besides, at various
centers there are Holland Homes, or Homes for the Aged, which are
also in part at least, institutions of mercy.

A large number of afflicted could not be placed in the first-named
institutions for lack of funds. Diaconates began to aid the afflicted or
their relatives financially, so that this very necessary Christian care
could be shared by such as would otherwise have to forego this privi-
lege. To assure the continuance of this practice the second provision
of Article 26 was added to this Article.

It is well that our readers of 1914 exercised this wise forethought
and added this timely ruling to Article 26. It is altogether proper that
the Deacons extend their helping hand to members who need institu-
tional care. This is self-evident to us- But future generations might
grow lax in this respect. This provision may help to avoid neglect, or
to recall delinquents to duty.

. . they shall request the Board of Directors of such institutions to
keep in close touch with them.” This part of the ruling most likely
refers to individual cases. If there be a member of one of our
Churches who receives care at an institution of Christian mercy, but
who is unable to pay the required sum, then the authorities of the
institution concerned should notify the Diaconate concerned. This
would also hold when application is made for admittance and the nec-
essary amount cannot be paid by the party or parties involved.

But this latter provision might also be interpreted to mean that any
and all Diaconates ought to ask all institutions of mercy in which our
group is particularly interested, to keep in close touch with them, so
that they may be well-informed as to the work and needs of these in-
stitutions and be ready to extend aid in any particular case that may
occur.

To the best of our knowledge, the former interpretation is the gen-
erally accepted one.

4. The matter of ecclesiastical institutions of mercy.

There have been those that would prefer to see the Churches build
and maintain institutions of Christian mercy, instead of leaving this to
other organizations. Others have contended that it is not the busi-
ness of the Church to take this matter to hand. The Church, so they

122

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

say, must preach the Gospel, and leave the building and managing of
institutions of mercy to groups of believers organized into societies for
this purpose. Secondly, those that do not favor ecclesiastical institu-
tions of mercy state that this would require a separate and powerful
ecclesiastical organization of Diaconates, whereas Reformed Church
polity knows hut one type of ruling or governing bodies, viz.: Con-
sistories, Classes, Synods. Church-owned and Church-managed in-
stitutions of mercy would require the organization of a second type
of ruling bodies, which would run counter to the divine plan, and
create confusion and dualism. There are other considerations of a more
practical nature, but these two are the main objections.

The first of these arguments we do not care to support. Jesus in-
deed charged His Church to preach the Gospel, but He also charged it
to heal the sick. And the Church represents Him as merciful High
Priest as well as great Prophet and eternal King. Of course, the
plan would involve the Church in business transactions. But what of
this? It may be practical wisdom to reduce the Church’s business
transactions to a minimum, but speaking from the aspect of principles,
this is not a requirement. The construction and care of church build-
ings is business, too.

Regarding the second objection we quote our late Prof. Heyns rather
at length: “On almost every Diaconal Conference, as Prof. Biesterveld
relates (Het Diaconaat, p. 386), the question was brought forward
whether it was not possible to come to representative diaconal meet-
ings with power to act. In 1888 a treatise was published by Prof. W.
Vanden Bergh of the Free University,1 in which the creation of such
an organization of the Diaconates of Classes and Provinces was advo-
cated. In the same year the Diaconal Congress adopted the following
proposition: ‘Especially with a view to social problems, to the provid-
ing and maintenance of institutions of mercy for the care of the blind,
the deaf-mute, the orphans, the insane, etc., it is desirable that there
be joint meetings of the Diaconates of Classes and Provinces, charged
and authorized; a) to discuss social problems and miseries, their
causes and cure; b) to establish or maintain institutions for the care
of the blind, etc.; c) to tend to the matter of well-to-do Diaconates
rendering assistance to the poorly provided ones. In 1899, however,
the question was brought before the General Synod of Groningen, and
its decision was, ‘that the organization of separate major Assemblies
for diaconal matters was not in agreement with the mutual relation
and co-operation of Church Assemblies as these are presented by the
Confession and the Church Order.’

“In the meantime a different way of bringing about contact and the
possibility of co-operation of the local Diaconates had been proposed by
Dr. Bavinck (Dogmatiek, IV, 2nd ed., p. 469). It was that Deacons,
together with Ministers and Elders, should be delegated to major As-
semblies, and should have in these major Assemblies a decisive vote in
all matters pertaining to the service of mercy.’!2 ,

This suggestion of Bavinck, vigorously seconded by Heyns, would
evidently meet the well-founded second objection against Church-
owned and Church-managed institutions of mercy. Incidentally, it
would give the Diaconates of our Churches the consideration and de-
velopment to which they are entitled. Nevertheless we fear that for
various reasons this suggestion would prove to be impractical. How-

1. Thi§. should read: “Dr. Mr. W. VandenBergh, Minister at Voorthuizen,”
Vanden Bergh never having been professor at any school.

2. Prof. Wm. Heyns: Handbook for Elders and Deacons, pp. 350-1.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

123

ever as far as the principle involved in this question is concerned, we
would ask: Why should the Church as an institution be required to
delegate a very important branch of its work of mercy to certain
groups of believers? There are, no doubt, a number of practical ob-
jections against diaconal institutions of mercy. For instance: Diaconal
institutions of mercy would make co-operation with believers of other
denominations more difficult. But on the score of principles we failed
to locate a valid one. And there are also practical considerations
which favor diaconal institutions of mercy.

Dr. F. L. Rutgers (Kerkelijke Adviezen, I, p. 210) cites instances
which show that diaconal institutions of mercy, managed by large
Diaconates under supervision of the Consistories, were not entirely
unknown in the past. In fact some of the Reformed Churches in
Holland still maintain their own institutions of mercy.

5. Mutual consultation and assistance.

Article 26 finally suggests mutual consultation and assistance. Co-
operation between our various diaconates, particularly neighboring
diaconates, is certainlv proper. There are practical considerations
which make co-operation advisable. For instance: One Church may
have many needy in the providence of God and but little ability to
help. Another Church may have but few needy and numerous well-to-
do members who can help those in need. Moreover, the inherent unity
of all the Churches, and denominational unity, would suggest co-
operation also. “Bear ye one another's burden," holds here as well as
elsewhere.

Note well that Article 26 does not say that our Diaconates should
hold combined gatherings, such as classical and synodical gatherings
are. The Church Order merely urges consultation and assistance.

Regarding the spelling of the word Deaconates in Article 26 see
our comments on page 167.

ARTICLE XXVII.

The Elders and Deacons shall serve two or more years ac-
cording to local regulations , and a proportionate number shall
retire each year. The retiring officers shall be succeeded by
others unless the circumstances and the profit of any Churchy
in the execution of Articles 22 and 24, render a re-election ad-
visable.

TENURE OF OFFICE FOR ELDERS AND DEACONS

Article 27 first of all speaks of the length of time for which Elders
and Deacons are to be chosen and appointed. Secondly this article
provides for definite retirement of these office-bearers, though it per-
mits exceptions to this rule.

1, Limited tenure of office for Elders and Deacons.

The Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. differentiates between
Term or Rotary Eldership, and Permanent Eldership. Doctrinally the
Presbyterian Churches hold that all the offices of the Church are per-
manent. He who is once inducted into office, whether as Minister,
Elder, or Deacon, remains in office as long as he remains a member

124

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

in good standing of the Presbyterian Church. Removal from the
particular Church which inducted him into office, or old age, does
terminate the active execution of office, but he does not lose the office
as suclu

When referring to this conception and practice consistent with it
the Presbyterians speak of Permanent Eldership.

However, certain practical difficulties obstructed the practice of Per-
manent Eldership. After much discussion the General Assembly of
1875 authorized Term or Rotary Eldership. That is to say, Elders
might be elected for a definite term of years as far as the actual exe-
cution of their office is concerned. But the principle underlying Per-
manent Eldership was maintained. Elders may either be elected for
life or for a term of three years. Term Elders may retire from active
service at the end of their term, but they continue to be office-bearers.
It was even decided, consistently so, that: “Elders, once ordained, shall
not be divested of the office when they are not re-elected.” Such
Elders, in common with all retired Elders, have no vote in their Ses-
sion (Consistory), but may be asked for advice and may also be sent
as delegates to the meetings of Presbyteries, Synods, and General
Assemblies. At a later period “Term Deaconship” was also made
permissible.

Our Church Order in this present article stipulates a limited tenure
of office for Elders and Deacons. How do we account for this fact?
Historically this provision of Article 27 dates back to none other
than John Calvin himself. Calvin and his co-workers re-instituted the
Elders’ and Deacons’ office in the Reformed Churches. Now Calvin
found no definite stipulation in the Bible which compelled him to look
upon these offices as permanent in their very essence. Nowhere does
the Bible even says — thus Calvin — that appointment to these offices in
the days of the Apostles was for life, although it must be granted
forthwith that term appointment is not mentioned either. Scripture,
in the absence of definite stipulations, so the Reformers concluded,
leaves this matter free, so that the Churches may regulate this mat-
ter according to their own best interests and welfare.

Now, to avoid a repetition of Roman misuse of power through its
hierarchical system from which the Churches had suffered so much,
and because very few brethren could afford to give much of their
time to church work continuously, Calvin thought it wise to appoint
Elders and Deacons, not for life, but for a limited period of time.
In Geneva they were appointed for one-year terms only. The Re-
formed Churches in Holland followed Calvin’s example. The Wezelian
Convention still spoke of one-year terms. Those who were able and
competent might be continued. Why such extremely short terms, and
that in a day when everything moved much slower? To avoid misuse
of power. But especially because the demands were very heavy on
the time of the Elders especially. All the Churches were young. Many
church members had been reared in the Roman Church. Consequently
they were very ignorant as to the true faith and they were constantly
surrounded and confronted with all kinds of problems and dangers to
their spiritual life. For a while, as we had occasion to mention here-
tofore, the Elders were expected to conduct home-visitation with
every family of the Church every week, each Elder having his own
district for this purpose.

Soon, however, already in 1571, the normal period of service for
Elders and Deacons became two years. Continuation in office, by de-
cision of the Consistory with the approbation of the congregation, or
immediate re-election by the congregation, were made permissible, if

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 125

the welfare of a particular Church seemed to demand this. But defi-
nite retirement for the ensuing year became the rule.

Gradually the period of service was lengthened in many Churches.
Yet, inasmuch as there were no Synodical gatherings for the 17th to
the 19th century, Article 27 remained unaltered. However, in 1905
the Churches of Holland revised the Article as we now have it, their
redaction having been adopted by us in 1914.

We appreciate the element of flexibility which we find in this article
also. Why make hard and fast rules when such is not necessary and
often contrary to the true welfare of the Churches? “Two or more
years.” Two years may be advisable in exceptional cases, but as a
rule a two-year term is too brief. A Consistory, to do consistent and
thorough work, needs a certain amount of stability and continuity.
Short terms do not make for these desirable qualities. In Churches
where the two-year term is in force, every twelfth month one-half of
the Consistory is unacquainted with matters that may be pending.
Continuity is promoted by less frequent and less complete changes.
In the Netherlands many Churches today elect their Elders and
Deacons for four or five or even six-year terms. Most of our Churches
seem to maintain three-year terms.

Why does the Church Order stipulate that a proportionate number
of Elders and Deacons shall retire each year? Obviously to rule out
all arbitrariness. All things pertaining to God’s Church should be
conducted with due order and impartial regularity. If the retirement
of office-bearers and their induction into office were not definitely
regulated thus, misuse of power on the part of Consistories might oc-
cur with greater ease. Suppose, for an example, a certain Consistory
should become unfaithful and disloyal as to the majority of its
members. Then, if the common Church Order did not oblige them to
do otherwise, they might so manipulate the retirement of office-
bearers as to hold the balance of power.

This provision makes for good order and regularity. It shields Con-
sistories against suspicion on the score of what we mentioned, and
safeguards the Churches against evil practices which might other-
wise creep in with greater ease.

2. Definite retirement.

Article 27 provides for definite retirement from office. That is to
say, when one’s term of office expires he is not immediately eligible
to re-election to that office.

Against the practice of definite retirement the following considera-
tions have been urged:

— The Church of Christ is worthy of the best talents at all times.
The Church should not be compelled to pass by efficient men, not
even for one year.

— Those that have served well should continue to serve without in-
terruption, for the Churches need experienced men.

— The number of brethren well qualified in every way to serve is
limited as it is. Their numbers should not be limited needlessly
still further.

— Definite retirement reduces the prestige of the office which it
sorely needs. Former respect for Elders, for instance, is fast
waning.

— Definite retirement does not make for continuity, an element
highly desirable for good Consistory work.

— Definite retirement promotes laxness as to studious application

126

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

on the part of Consistory members, inasmuch as their service is
only temporary.

— Definite retirement breaks the connecting link between office-
bearers and the work of the major assemblies, to the hurt of both.

In favor of definite retirement the following considerations are the
most weighty :

— Continuous service in Consistory would constitute a real hardship
for many busy and burdened men. Many would feel compelled to
withhold themselves altogether.

— Long continued periods of service in Consistory tends to promote
hierarchical tendencies. Experience has taught that when men
have served for a long period of years continuously, they are in-
clined to feel indispensable, and are inclined to become wilful.

— Definite retirement helps to ward off conservatism. Elderly men
naturally tend to become overly conservative and immediate eligi-
bility for re-election as a rule tends to keep the same men in
office continuously, until they are too old to serve, and sometimes
beyond that period.

— Definite retirement brings to the fore and puts into the harness
new talents, while the others, if they have served well, enjoy a
well-earneci rest, ready to serve again in due season.

— Retired office-bearers are a good influence in the midst of the
congregation.

— Inferior men (inferior as far as their work and ability as office-
bearers is concerned, though they may be very good in doctrine
and life)^ are thus retired from service in the least offensive way.

Although it must be admitted that there are good arguments on
both sides of £his question, yet those favoring definite retirement
doubtlessly outweigh the arguments against the practice. We do be-
lieve, however, that the term of service could be lengthened in many
of our Churches beyond the present-day two- and three-year limit, to
very good advantage. This would somewhat meet the altogether
valid objections against definite retirement.

3. Definite retirement not always required.

Definite retirement has been the rule in the Reformed Churches of
our fathers ever since the Reformation, although at certain periods
and at times it fell into disuse. But our fathers never held that it
was the only possible way. Nor that it was for all Churches and
under all circumstances the best policy.

In small Churches definite retirement would very often work real
harm and hardship. In other Churches, though larger, it may be im-
possible to secure a sufficient number of worthy men for the nomina-
tions without including the names of retiring Consistory-members.
For all such exceptional cases we have the provision that immediate
renomination is permissible. The true welfare of the Churches is of
far greater importance than adherence to a general rule adopted to
promote the welfare of the Churches, but application of which in
some cases would be to the detriment of the Churches.

Wherever conditions make immediate eligibility advisable, Consisto-
ries should not hesitate to make use of this exceptive provision.

A few practical questions, related to the material of Art. 27 still
await our reply.

Should the number of Elders and Deacons always be equal? Not
necessarily. In the majority of our Churches it may be perfectly
proper to appoint an equal number of each. But in many Churches
today there is much more work for the Elders than for the Deacons,

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

127

and consequently a larger number of Elders should be appointed, if
at least suitable men are available.

Supposing a Consistory desires to nominate a retiring Deacon for
Elder or vice versa, would this be permissible in view of Art. 27 ?
Yes. This article provides that no Elder shall immediately succeed
himself as Elder, and no Deacon shall immediately succeed himself
as Deacon. But one who retires from one office could be chosen to
another office without any lapse of time. If someone has served as
Deacon, and the Consistory finds that he has gifts for the Elder’s
office, then such a Consistory may instantly nominate him. It stands
to reason, however, that it is better to wait if a sufficient number of
men are available. But if the Consistory nominates such a one im-
mediately, no rule is violated. In fact, one whose term as Elder or
Deacon has not yet expired, may, even if circumstances render the
step advisable, be nominated for the other office. If such a nominee
is elected, the Church immediately elects his successor to the office
which is thus vacated, from among the candidates nominated for the
office concerned.

Some find fault with their Consistories when they nominate as
office-bearers men who have retired the previous year. They would
favor a rule which would discourage early renomination. Would such
a rule be advisable ? We answer in the negative. The Churches should
be served by the best and most experienced of its members. Why sys-
tematically eliminate previous office-bearers longer than one year?
If said former office-bearers are unworthy of the office, or if better
qualified brethren are available, these brethren in the providence of
God will eventually be chosen. The Churches, after all, elect. Ex-
office-bearers that are inferior and undesirable are naturally passed
by, either at the Consistory meeting or at the congregational meeting.

Suppose the newly elected office-bearers cannot be inducted into
office at the appointed time, do they begin to function without installa-
tion? Synod of 1912 decided that in case the installation of newly-
elected Elders and Deacons must be postponed for weighty reasons,
the tenure of the retiring Elders and Deacons is extended, and they
remain legal trustees of the Church.

ARTICLE XXVIII.

The Consistory shall take care , that the Churches for the
possession of their property , and the peace and order of their
meetings can claim the protection of the Authorities; it should
be weU understood , however , that for the sake of peace and
material possession they! may never suffer the royal government
of Christ over His Church to be in the least infringed upon.

GOVERNMENTAL PROTECTION

The present article has but a brief history. It first saw the light
of day as recently as 1914, having been adopted by our Synod of that
year. Nearly all the articles of our Church Order wear the honorable
crown of old age, and come to us with the prestige of antiquity, hav-
ing been written and adopted by Reformed Synods before the year
1600, and having been reviewed and approbated by the great Synod

128

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

of Dort, 1618-19. And so Article 28 is as a youthful child standing:
in the midst of men of mature years.

1. The original 28th article.

Of course, there was an Article 28 also before 1914. But its content
and provision seemed out of date and out of position to our Synod
of 1914, especially for our Churches in the United States of America.
The Reformed Churches of Holland, in their revision of 1905, have
left Article 28 unchanged. The following is our own rendering hi
English of the original 28th Article: “As it is the duty of the Chris-
tian governments to promote the sacred services of the Churches as
much as possible, and to recommend their activity to all their subjects
by personal example, and to assist the Ministers, Elders and Deacons
in all cases of need or emergency, and to protect them in the execu-
tion of their tasks as governors of the Churches, so also the Ministers*
Elders and Deacons are in duty bound zealously and in sincerity to
urge obedience, love and respect toward the magistrates upon the
whole congregation; they shall, moreover, make themselves good ex-
amples to the Church in this matter, and through the manifestation
of due respect and the establishment of correspondence with the civil
authorities they shall endeavor to secure and hold the good-will of
the government toward the Churches; to the end that, each doing his
duty in the fear of the Lord, all suspicion and distrust may be avoided
and that thus due co-operation may be maintained for the welfare of
the Churches.”

Jansen says it is not clear why the Synod of Dort added this ar-
ticle. He suggests two possibilities, viz., (1) In order to secure civil
approbation of the Church Order. This our post-Reformation fathers
were very eager to secure. For that would mean that the Church Or-
der would virtually have the force of civil law. And that in turn
would promote the cause of Reformed Churches and unity. (2) To
indicate clearly the duties and authority of both Government and
Church, thus also committing themselves against the Arminian con-
ception, which would virtually place the Government in authority
over the Churches, and against the Roman conception which would
subject the State to the Church.

Historically the original reading of Article 28 is not without sig-
nificance. It tells us in plain words what the Fathers of Dort thought
as to the proper relation between Church and State. A question ever
up-to-date to be sure. And one which may become very urgent at
any time also in our own country. Confer government interference
with Church affairs during the World War, and think of the situation
in certain European countries.

If Jansen is correct when he surmises that our Fathers adopted
the original 28th Article because they desired to elevate the Church
Order to the level of state laws through civil approbation, then in so
far we would not concur. Neither do we today agree with all that
the original article contains. But neither do we throw overboard every
sentiment embodied in this article of 1618-19.

We question the wisdom of our Synod of 1914 when it eliminated
the original article altogether. True, however, that the loss is not as
great as it might be, inasmuch as we have an official commitment
and expression regarding the relation between Church and State on
the part of our Churches today in Article 36 of the Confession and
the decision of the Synod of 1910 appended.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

129

2. The chief provision of the present 28th article.

What is the chief provision of Article 28? That Consistories are
in duty bound to secure proper recognition on the part of the Gov-
ernment for their respective Churches. Not that our Churches hold
that the secular government, local, state, or national, have authority
over the ecclesiastical affairs of its subjects. Not that we would at-
tribute any supervisory authority to the State in regard to matters
ecclesiastical. Churches are inherently, by dint of their very nature,
free from State domination and State regulation. But each congre-
gation, as an institution among men, has certain rights and privi-
leges. Our Churches have the right to buy and build; to serve God
unmolested; to retain their properties, etc. The Government is the
God-ordained institution among men which, amongst other things,
must also secure to the Churches their liberties and rights. Now, to
assure the Churches the maximum of protection, also if need be
through the courts, they must have legal recognition on the part of
the Government. The obtainment of this legal standing or legal rec-
ognition Article 28 provides for.

The article states that Consistories shall see to it that the Churches
can claim the protection of the authorities. The responsibility regard-
ing this matter is therefore placed with the Consistories. They are
the governing bodies in our Reformed system and so this is perfectly
proper. In the Congregational system (Congregational and Baptist
Churches, etc.), a matter of this kind would be referred to the con-
gregation as a whole. Not so with us. This, however, do-es not mean
that the congregation takes no action in this matter, and that the
Consistory is the legal body which is incorporated. For the individual
believers act also here. But under the direction and control of the
office-bearers appointed.

We stated above that Article 28 does not mean to attribute super-
visory authority to the Government, and that the Churches of Jesus
Christ are inherently free from State domination. This is certainly
correct. The Churches know no King but Jesus. Under Him they are
sovereign within their own sphere. However, we do not mean to deny
that the State has certain regulatory rights, which also touch the
domain of the Churches. Civil authorities, for instance, may insist,
for the safety of all concerned, that the general rules of fire preven-
tion be observed as we erect our church buildings. For the protection
of the health of the church-members, as well as for the community,
they have a right to insist on proper sanitation. In matters as these
the State authorities have a certain God-given responsibility, also re-
garding Churches. But as to matters of faith and confession; the
internal arrangement of congregational activities; the government of
the Church in spiritual matters, etc., these matters are strictly ecclesi-
astical, and not political. And concerning these matters the Church
may and must say to the State: Hands off!

How” should this provision be carried out? Through incorporation.
This is evidently the intent of Article 28. It is true that also unin-
corporate groups are entitled to the protection of civil authorities, but
the phrase, “for the possession of their property ,” clearly refers to
incorporation. This was so self-evident to the Synod of 1914 that it
did not even deem it necessary to use this term in formulating this
article. The list of questions for Church Visitation approbated by
Synod of 1922 does contain a specific query regarding proper incor-
poration.

Every State in our Union has provided for the incorporation of
Church groups. After incorporation papers have been filed with the

130

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Secretary of State, usually through the County Clerk, and after these
have been properly approved and registered, the congregation has
legal standing. As a corporate body it may transact its material af-
fairs ana claim the protection of the courts in case of necessity.
Always within the terms of the incorporation document, of course.
Without incorporation a Church may organize itself in our country
and also transact its material business, but in cases of emergency it
could never claim the protection of the courts. Ordinary police pro-
tection, etc., could be secured under normal circumstances, also by
unincorporated Churches.

The main purpose for which incorporation is urged upon the
Churches is no doubt to assure the Churches against unfair infringe-
ment upon their property rights, both on the part of individuals and
groups — the latter especially. Sad to say, divergent doctrines are apt
to be preached and advocated from our pulpits from time to time.
Sometimes these culminate in sharp differences and separations. Al-
most invariably these divergent groups feel that they are not diver-
gent or that they have not received a square deal, or both, and insist
on holding the properties in their possession. Without proper incor-
poration the faithful groups and sections would in most cases lose all
their possessions. Through incorporation legal claims and vindication
becomes possible.

Too bad that these serious disputes occur. But let us appreciate
the fact that our Churches have life enough left for these disputes
when they are necessary.

3. The condition attached to this article.

The condition which concludes Article 28 reads as follows: It should
be well understood, however, that for the sake of peace and material
possession they may never suffer the royal government of Christ over
His Church to be in the least infringed upon.

Our Synod of 1914 was thoroughly convinced that State domination
over the Church may never be tolerated. It prized very highly the
liberties which is the just right of each Church. State domination
ever stands condemned inasmuch as Christ is the Church’s absolute
monarch. Never may the Church give unto Caesar that which is
God’s. Never may she detract from the authority and honor which
is Christ’s and give it to the State. Church history is replete with
blunders and sins belonging to this category, blunders and sins com-
mitted to the dishonor of Christ and to the damage of the Churches
concerned. Every time!

And so Synod of 1914 ruled, that, rather than detract in the least
from Christ’s authority over us, our Churches should remain unin-
corporated. Rather suffer loss of property and incur injustice than
bring the Churches in bondage to the State. Whenever incorporation
should entail this evil, so the article rules. Churches must refrain
from incorporating.

Too bad that our civil governments incorporate our Churches as if
they are ordinary societies or corporations. This is not as it should
be. The Churches of Jesus Christ are not man-made corporations in
the sense that secular organizations are. This evil should be rectified
as soon as possible. But inasmuch as this feature has never entailed
practices which we must condemn, incorporation is permissible even so.

CONCERNING ECCLESIASTICAL ASSEMBLIES

ARTICLE XXIX.

Four kinds of ecclesiastical assemblies shall be maintained:
the Consistory , the Classis (the particular Synod), and the Gen-
eral Synod.

FOUR KINDS OF ASSEMBLIES

Article 29 introduces us to a new division of our Church Order.
Thus far we have considered matters pertaining to the officers in
our Churches. Art. 29-52 concern the ecclesiastical assemblies. Art.
29-36 embody a number of general rules concerning our assemblies.
Art. 37-40 deal particularly with matters consistorial. Art. 41-45
regulate classical matters. Art, 46-49 concern Particular Synods. And
Art. 50-52 stipulate what is to be observed regarding our General
Synods.

1. The historical origin of the ecclesiastical assemblies.

Consistory meetings, as stands to reason, were held from the very
beginning of the Reformation movement. As soon as groups of be-
lievers had organized themselves, or were organized, into Reformed
Churches, the ruling office-bearers met more or less regularly. But
Major Assemblies were not held until several years later. Persecution,
war, and lack of ecclesiastical understanding and development in
many cases, account for this fact. The first few decades of the Re-
formation era were naturally formative to a high degree.

In France, where the Calvinistic Reformation had acquired a
strong foothold, there were over 2,000 Reformed congregations by
the year 1561. Three years prior, in 1558, there had been a gathering
of a number of Reformed Ministers at the Church of Poitiers, where
also a representative of the Church of Paris was in attendance. Here
the advisability and need of Synodical gatherings was discussed. The
Church of Paris was asked to call all the Reformed Churches of
France in Synodical gathering. This Synod was held in Paris the
following year, in 1559.

At this first Synod of Reformed Churches of France a Church Order
was adopted to which the integrity of the several congregations is
basic, but which also provides for provincial and national Synods, at
which the common interests of the Churches might be discussed and
acted upon. Classical meetings were not introduced in France until
1572.

The Reformed Churches of the southern Netherlands (now largely
Belgium), met repeatedly since 1563, regulating their affairs largely
according to the Orders in force in France and Geneva under Calvin.

The refugee Churches in England and Germany at this time also
held their meetings.

The Wezelian Convention, 1568, though not a Synod inasmuch as
the various delegates were not authorized to act for the various
Churches, was the most representative gathering of Holland Churches

131

132

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

held up to that year. Tentative regulations for definite federation
were adopted.

The first Synod of the Reformed Churches of the Low Countries
was held in 1571, at Emden, Germany. Conditions in the Netherlands
were as yet too hostile and irregular for a Synodical gathering. The
Emden Church Order provided for Consistories, Classes, Provincial
Synods, and National Synods. At this time, according to Prof. H.
Bouwman, the Churches of our forefathers yielded some of their in-
dividual rights regarding government and discipline for the sake of
the general welfare of the Churches.* All delegates to this first
Synod had been summoned and delegated with authority to act in this
direction. At the same time rules were agreed upon which protected
the rights of the individual members of the Churches, and which
would counteract all wilfulness and arbitrariness. The Churches also
agreed to admit candidates to the ministry only after consultation
with the other neighboring Churches, and that Ministers would hence-
forth not be called or disciplined without such consultation.

A common Confession and a Church Order were adopted. In sub-
stance, as to its fundamental principles, we are still governed by this
first Church Order, although it was revised according to need several
times.

2. The significance of names given to these assemblies.

The word Consistory is derived from the Latin “consistorium,”
meaning, place of meeting. It indicates the body of men chosen to
govern the affairs of a local Church. The Dutch speak of “Kerkeraad,”
i.e., Church Council. The Presbyterians refer to the body of their
pastors and ruling Elders as the Session.

The word Classis (plural: Classes) is also Latin and indicates a
division or class of people or of other objects.

And the word Synod is derived from the Greek “sunodos,” indicat-
ing, “a coming together, assembly, meeting.” The term “Particular
Synod” indicates the gathering of a number of Classes. The Dutch
original of our Article 29 speaks of “Provinciate Synoden,” inasmuch
as the borders of the various provinces of the Netherlands were made
to serve as borders for the territory of Particular Synods also.

And finally, the term General Synod is used to indicate the gather-
ing of all the federated Churches. The expression is used synonymous
in the Netherlands with National Synod.

Art. 46-49, which pertain to Particular Synods, have no present and
immediate value for us, inasmuch as our Churches do not hold Par-
ticular Synods. These articles were left in the Church Order for
completeness sake. They, as will have been noted, are printed between
parentheses.

3. The character of ecclesiastical assemblies.

Regarding the nature of ecclesiastical assemblies, note first of all
that according to Reformed church polity, only such Churches as are
confessionally like-minded can have part in these gatherings. For
Churches to be federally united, these must have a common concep-
tion of Holy Writ, and thus a common working platform. Co-opera-
tion and promotion of each other’s welfare would be impossible with-
out confessional unity. Ecclesiastical federation without confessional
unity would make for shallowness and fruitlessness, or else for trou-
ble and constant conflict.

♦Bouwman: Gor. Xerkrecht, 1934, II, pp. 2, 3.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

133

Secondly, Churches ecclesiastically federated are and remain com-
plete in themselves. The various local Churches do not dissolve them-
selves into a large classical Church, or into a national, synodical
Church. The local congregation is a complete manifestation of the
body of Christ, a unit in itself, and is not to be looked upon as a
sub-division of a large super-Church ruling with superior power.

Furthermore, the nature of ecclesiastical federation (“kerkverband”
is the Dutch term) is nevertheless such that the major assemblies
exercise a binding authority regarding all matters wThich concern the
Churches in general and which have not been specifically left to the
individual Churches or congregations. At major assemblies the indi-
vidual Churches act in unison by common consent. Decisions must
therefore be respected unless proven contrary to the Bible or the
Church Order previously agreed upon.

Reformed Church polity therefore upholds the integrity of the local
Church, but at the same time does full justice to all the Churches
federally united and the spiritual unity underlying the federation.
Also because of this spiritual unity in Christ and confessional unity
doctrinally, by God’s providence, federation is not left merely to the
judgment of each Church. There is a very definite spiritual obligation
flowering forth from a real spiritual union and agreement which
makes ecclesiastical federation and its implications mandatory upon
the Churches.

4. The character and purpose of congregational meetings.

Our Churches know of four types of governing assemblies and only
four; those mentioned in the present article. The congregational
meeting is not amongst them. In the Congregational system (Congre-
gational Churches, Baptist Churches, etc.) the congregational meeting
is really the one and only authoritative Church assembly. Office-
bearers are to execute the decision of the congregational meeting.
In the Reformed system, however, it is held that Christ governs His
Church through the offices instituted for that purpose. Is there no
room, then, in the Reformed system for congregational meeting? In-
deed there is. Repeatedly, for instance, the Church Order prescribes
that matters must be submitted to the congregation for approbation.
(Cf. Articles 4, 5, 22, etc.) Now, this may be done by announcing de-
cisions which the Consistory is minded to take, so that the members
can express themselves at a given consistory meeting, in case they
desire to do so. Or the Consistory may call together all members
in good and regular standing and submit the matter at hand to the
Church as a body, for consideration and advice.

But these congregational meetings are really Consistory meetings
to which the Consistory has previously invited all the members. We
might call them open consistory meetings. Decisions really become
binding only after the matter has been acted upon by the actual ruling
body of the congregation.

Of course, no Consistory has the right to treat the members of its
Church as minors. Every believer is a temple of the Holy Spirit and
lives in a state of majority and not of minority. And Consistories
should keep in much closer touch with the body of believers than is
done as a rule. And no Consistory may lightly set aside an expression
of opinion on a definite matter by the majority of its congregation.

But neither may the Consistory transfer its God-imposed authority
to non-office-bearers and refuse to exercise its responsibility. The
control of congregational gatherings should therefore remain with the
Consistory and it should be clearly understood that the gathering is

134

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

essentially advisory in character. From the foregoing it also follows
that the minutes of these meetings are Consistory minutes and should
be approved by it.

5. The question of universal Synods of Reformed Churches.

What should be our attitude toward international Synods of Re-
formed Churches? The Reformed Church of the Netherlands of the
sixteenth century certainly favored ecumenical or universal Synods.
But their plan and hopes concerning such Synods never materialized.
The government frowned upon these plans fearing interference by
foreign powers in matters national. The difference in languages was
also a formidable barrier. And the heavy expenditures involved fur-
thermore kept the cherished ideals from being realized. The great
Synod of Dort was the nearest approach to a universal Reformed
Synod which history records. In recent years the subject has been
revived. Some of the old obstacles still stand, but modern travel may
enable us to realize this long-cherished hope at some future time.
However, numerous other questions, such as to scope and measure
of authority, would seem to make it advisable to steer in the direc-
tion of a Convention. This was proposed by the South African
Churches to the Reformed Churches of Holland and to our Churches.
But present-day conditions seem to prohibit even the realization of
this hope. Nevertheless, an international convention of Reformed
Churches certainly would seem to be within the realm of possibilities,
and we should very definitely move in this direction. We need each
other. In this day of internationalism, when many organizations meet
internationally to promote their aims, the Church of God should not
come trailing on behind. If the Communists, and other godless organi-
zations can meet internationally, why cannot we?

ARTICLE XXX.

In these assemblies ecclesiastical matters only shall be trans-
acted and that in an ecclesiastical manner. In major assemblies
only such matters shall be dealt with as could not be finished
in minor assemblies , or such as pertain to the Churches of the
major assembly in common.

THE AUTHORITY OF ECCLESIASTICAL ASSEMBLIES

Beyond dispute, this 30th article of our Church Order is very sig-
nificant. The article concerns, in the main, three matters, viz.; (1)
That the authority of ecclesiastical assemblies is limited to ecclesias-
tical matters; (2) The manner in which ecclesiastical gatherings must
transact their affairs; (3) The limited authority of major assemblies.
For practical reasons, in the interest of clarity we have, however,
divided the consideration of Art. 30 into seven points.

1. The authority of ecclesiastical assemblies limited to ecclesiastical
matters.

The assemblies to which this article has reference are those enum-
erated in Article 29, namely: Consistory, Classis, Particular Synod,
and General Synod. At all these ecclesiastical meetings, none but ec-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

135

clesiastical matters shall be transacted. Why this provision? In the
first place because the domain over which the instituted Church of
Christ has authority is not general, but limited. It is limited to that
which concerns the preaching of the Gospel, the administration of
the Sacraments, the calling and ordination to office, the exercise of
discipline, the promotion of a consecrated scriptural Church com-
munion, and kindred matters. The former of these, as will be evident,
require the latter.

The Reformation Churches of Holland soon realized that although
the Church of Christ — conceived of as the body of true believers,
living in various lands and belonging to various Church organizations
— is the salt of the earth, and has a very definite task in all domains
of life, that the organized or instituted Church as such has authority
only in matters ecclesiastical. Individual believers and groups of be-
lievers have rights and obligations extending over all domains of life,
but the organized Church, though it stands related to all of life, can-
not act authoritatively beyond its own domain. Nowhere do we find
that Holy Writ attributes extra-ecclesiastical authority to the insti-
tuted Church. The prophets and Apostles do have a message again
and again pertaining to social, political, or economic life. But at no
time do we find the prophets or Apostles and Elders actually trans-
acting affairs belongin'^ to these domains.

In this respect also our fathers took a position quite different from
the Roman Catholic Church which seeks to control all domains of
life, and regards the bishop of Rome (the Pope) as supreme ruler of
the Church not only, but also over all temporal affairs. The Refor-
mation was definitely a “back-to-the-Bible” movement also in this
respect. Not that the Biblical limitations of ecclesiastical authority
stood out in bold relief before all the Reformers. At first even many
of the Calvinistic Churches did seek a voice in matters non-ecclesias-
tical. The pressure of circumstances (persecution) urged them on,
even as the example of Romanism misled and tempted them. And so
at first political and military matters would be discussed at some ec-
clesiastical gatherings, particularly in France. But it was definitely
against the genius of the Reformed conception of the instituted
Church.

In the very first redaction of our Church Order we consequently
already find the provision before us, i.e., “In ecclesiastical assemblies
none but ecclesiastical matters shall be transacted.” Even when Wil-
liam the Silent, who so nobly fought the cause of Protestant Holland
against oppressive, domineering Roman Spain, solicited the direct
support of the Reformed Churches of Holland convened in their first
Synod (Emden, 1571), through Mamix van St. Aldegonde, these
Churches refrained from taking such action.

There were also secondary considerations, we may believe, which
moved our fathers to include this provision in their Church Order.
If the Churches should engage in various matters, lying outside of
the sphere of their responsibility, they would in so far interfere with
the rights and responsibilities of others. This would be contrary to
justice and God’s ordinance.

Moreover, if the Churches should busy themselves with secular
matters, they would in all likelihood neglect their real task. The right
management of the Churches and the promotion of things spiritual
would suffer if the Churches should spend their time and efforts on
non-ecclesiastical territory, even as a farmer cannot do justice to his
farm, if he is constantly employed in town.

Furthermore, the transaction of non-ecclesiastical affairs would

136

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

most naturally lead to undesirable entanglements. It would lead the
Churches concerned into conflict and trouble repeatedly.

2. Matters not to be considered and acted upon at ecclesiastical
assemblies.

Which matters should not be considered and acted upon at ecclesi-
astical assemblies? Matters which do not concern the Churches in
the administration of the Word and the Sacraments, or in their exer-
cise of discipline, or in their regulation of divine worship, and the
promotion of sound doctrine and vital spiritual living and ecclesias-
tical activity. Thus, e.g., political issues and the question regarding
the government of State and nation are non-ecclesiastical and cannot
be acted upon in our assemblies. Furthermore, matters social and
economic are also non-ecclesiastical. Discussion and action pertaining
to these spheres cannot take place at our Consistory meetings.
Classes, or Synods.

Let it be clear, however, that this restriction of our Church Order
does not imply that Christianity has no interest and message for the
various spheres of life, political, social, etc. It most certainly has.
The sovereignty of God, denied and contested by sin, must be recog-
nized in every domain of life. Christ is not only King of the Church,
but also King of kings and Lord of lords, to whom all power is given
in heaven and on earth. As His loyal subjects we Christians must
proclaim and insist on His royal rights.

Neither does it mean that the instituted Church as such has no
message for and interest in things governmental, social, economic,
educational, etc. It assuredly has. Through the preaching of the
Word, f.i., the instituted Churches must proclaim the will of God for
all of life, and condemn sin and evil in all spheres of life. But though
the Churches have a directive and enlightening task, they have no
legislative and executive task regarding the secular affairs and de-
partments of life. Consequently questions pertaining to a certain war,
our political parties, unemployment, taxation, old age pension, etc.,
are not to be discussed at our assemblies, unless it be indirectly, in
as far as many matters political, economic, social, and educational
stand very closely related to things ecclesiastical. But even so the
Churches should go no further than is required for the correct gov-
ernment and the best interests of the Churches. So, f.i., a Consistory
may not take action for or against a week-day half-holiday grocery
store closing movement, or the question of retail sales taxes.

Today there is a strong tendency in many Churches all around us
to busy themselves at their assemblies with social and economic prob-
lems. This our Church Order condemns. And rightly so. The Church
which engages itself with all kinds of questions (questions urgent
and very vital in themselves, even crying for consideration and solu-
tion on the part of Christian leaders and Christian organizations),
will do so at the expense of its true spiritual welfare and its real
calling. The best service which the instituted Churches of Christ can
render our country, also economically and socially, is that they mind
their own specific business, and thus constitute themselves a saving
salt in this world of sin, and a beacon light of safety for the storm-
tossed sailors of life’s dark and stormy waters.

3. Are Consistories ever obligated to settle disputes concerning
things material?

No. Sometimes brethren entertain claims against each other. Mr.
A may contend that Mr. B owes him a certain amount of money

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

137

which he refuses to pay. May A bring: this matter to the Consistory
and ask the Consistory to take matters in hand? No, he may not.
However, if A is convinced that B is defrauding him, that would
involve a sin against the eighth commandment. Concerning this al-
leged sin he may and must admonish Mr. B. according to the rule of
Matt. 18. If unsuccessful he may have to bring the matter to the at-
tention of the Consistory in that form. But the Consistory may never
permit itself to be used as a collecting agency.

Again, Mr. C may claim that Mr. D has moved a certain line fence
to the latter’s advantage. D may deny the charge. C may take the
matter to the Consistory. Should the Consistory, if asked to do so,
endeavor to determine who is right? No.

b For all such cases our Lord’s “Man, who made me a judge or a
divider over you?” (Luke 12:14) is altogether applicable. Let the
parties concerned in all such cases appoint an impartial committee
of arbitration of Christian brethren, and let these settle the matter,
the parties at variance first promising to abide by the findings of the
committee. Or else, if this way is not wanted (which attitude would
certainly not be to the credit of the parties involved), let the divinely-
appointed courts decide. However, the admonition of I Cor. 6 should
weigh heavy on us of this day also, inasmuch as the courts of our
day are largely presided over by unbelievers and are under the con-
trol of unbelievers.

4. Significance of the phrase: “and that in an ecclesiastical manner”.

Only ecclesiastical matters are to be considered at our ecclesiastical
assemblies. And the manner of their consideration must also be ec-
clesiastical. What does this mean? The Church Order here contrasts
the Church assemblies particularly with our State and federal as-
semblies. Congress and Senate, as well as any other civil government
body, decides and legislates according to parliamentary rules. Often
the majority is fully satisfied when a bill is passed, though large
numbers are bitterly opposed and disappointed. But in our ecclesiasti-
cal assemblies we should by all means seek to convince and persuade
each other from the Word of God. We should not seek to force our
opinions and convictions onto others. Our assemblies should far rather
guide and direct. By mutual consultation and consideration of God’s
Word we should endeavor to come to a mutual conclusion.

Furthermore, all business should be transacted according to the
adopted Church Order. Complicated parliamentary rules are out of
place in ecclesiastical assemblies. Our Church gatherings are not
courts of law, nor bodies for civil legislation, nor commercial gather-
ings. To be sure, all things should be done “decently and in good
order,” but neither Roberts’ Rules of Order nor complicated and
technical synodically approved sets of detailed rules of procedure
should be permitted to hinder and hurt our ecclesiastical assemblies
in their work. Rules are necessary, but too many rules are a hind-
rance. A hindrance to unhampered deliberation and mutual considera-
tion. To deliberate and decide upon ecclesiastical matters in an un-
ecclesiastical way brings spiritual damage. Freedom should be main-
tained and fostered. All members at our Church gatherings should
feel free to express themselves without too much fear of transgressing
some parliamentary rule and of being called to order by the president.
We should appreciate the fact that our Church Order is a non-techni-
cal, simple document. Let us value and maintain these features.

138

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

5. What should be noted regarding the terms “major assemblies” and
“minor assemblies”?

This latter provision of Article 30 is also very important. It is
typically Reformed. It is fundamental for Reformed Church govern-
ment.

Reformed church polity does not know a system of lower and higher
courts in the usual sense of the word. It does not, as is done par-
ticularly by the Roman Catholic Church and to a certain extent by
some Protestant bodies, attribute a small and limited measure of au-
thority to the governing body of the local Congregation, a somewhat
greater and more extensive measure of authority to groups of neigh-
boring Churches convening together, and a still greater and still
more extensive, measure of authority to assemblies next in order, and
finally the greatest and most extensive measure of authority to' the
gathering representing all the Churches. If this were the case the
Church , Order might speak of lower and higher assemblies. For in
that case Consistories would have only a limited and smaller degree
of authority; and Synod a very wide and high degree of authority,
while our Classes would exercise an intermediate measure of author-
ity. But Reformed Church polity does not hold that Consistories have
a lower and more limited degree of authority, and Classes and
Synods a higher and more extensive degree. Consequently our Church
Order speaks of major and minor assemblies, and not of higher and
lower assemblies.

The Latin word minor, signifies “less,” and the Latin word major
“more.” If our fathers had desired to indicate that our Classes and
Synods are invested with higher authority than the Consistories,
higher in the sense of having inherent powers not vested in the ruling
bodies of the local Churches, then they would have used the compara-
tive of some other Latin word, f.i., altus<, signifying “high.” But they
used major, inasmuch as the authority of our major assemblies
(Classes and Synods) is the same in essence as the authority vested
in the local Church.

In fact. Reformed Church polity knows of only one type and degree
of authority: that vested in the local congregation or its ruling body,
the Consistory. The authority exercised by the major assemblies is
no higher and greater essentially, but merely the sum-total of the
authority exercised by the individual Consistories meeting as Classis
or Synod. The authority of our major assemblies may therefore be
looked upon as an accumulation or combination of consistorial author-
ity.

Furthermore, the authority of our Consistories is not less extensive
than that of our Classes and Synods, but more extensive than that
of Classes and Synods. That is to say, the domain over which our
Consistories have authority is much more extensive than that of
Classes and Synods.

Many denominations, Roman Catholicism especially, regard their
denomination as being a large super-Church, and the local Churches
as mere subdivisions of the one large Church. Consequently, the high-
est authority they find inherently in the high courts or judicial bodies
of their Church. And to these superior institutions they also attribute
the widest scope of authority. The Reformed system, however, main-
tains that each local congregation is a complete Church, a complete
manifestation of the body of Christ. In that sense and in so far each
Church or congregation is independent in essence (zelfstandig). Local
Churches can even exist without denominational federation, but a

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

139

denomination cannot exist without local Churches. The real unit is
therefore the individual Church. And the local Churches do not exist
for the sake of the denomination, but denominations exist for the
sake of the local and individual Churches.

The terms “major” and “minor”, in Art. 30, do not, therefore,
refer to a system of lower and higher ecclesiastical courts, exercising
various inherent degrees of authority, but they designate, in the first
place, that at major assemblies a number of Churches are gathered
together, and that consequently, in the second place, at major as-
semblies a larger measure of authority is present than at minor as-
semblies, even as ten men have more strength than one alone.

It is interesting to note that the Synod of Dordrecht (1578) used
the phrase, “grooter en minderen versamelinghen,” i.e., larger and
smaller assemblies. In this sense our Dutch Church Order still speaks
of, “maerdere en mindere vergaderingen.”

Bearing the foregoing in mind it is not difficult to see why Article
30 limits the scope of authority of major assemblies, and safeguards
the rights of all the Churches.

How does this article further maintain the integrity of our con-
gregations? Article 30 specifies very clearly that only such matters
shall be considered and acted upon at major assemblies as could not
be finished by the minor assemblies.

No Classis or Synod may therefore assume to do that which right-
fully belongs to the domain of the local Church, and which can be
acted upon by its Consistory. No major assembly may therefore
needlessly interfere with the management of congregational affairs.
There are a good many matters and instances concerning which a
Consistory would have the right to say, if need should require, to
major assemblies: Hands off!

The authority of major assemblies is very clearly limited in this
article, thus maintaining the integrity and autonomy of each Church.

At the same time the article wards off the danger of an oligarchical
rule by a few men, vested with superior authority.

Furthermore, the provision also rules out the danger of flooding
the tables of major assemblies with overmuch work, which makes for
hasty superficiality and blunderous decisions. No individual or as-
sembly may expect a major assembly to act regarding matters which
could be finished at minor assemblies.

6. Matters that “could not be finished in minor assemblies.”

Sometimes matters, which as to their essence belong to the domain
of the minor assemblies cannot well be finished by them. Now the
Church Order provides that such cases shall be acted upon by the
major assemblies. For example, a matter may be so complicated and
difficult that a Consistory feels itself incompetent to deal with the
matter. It may then ask the Classis with its greater numbers and
superior wisdom and experience, to extend its helping hand. Or again
the absence Jfrom home or the long continued illness of some Consis-
tory members may so weaken a small Consistory that it is for the
time being unable to finish a matter in itself not so overly difficult.

Furthermore, when a member or a body desires to make an appeal
concerning any action of a minor assembly, such an appeal as a mat-
ter of course goes to the major assembly to which the appeal is right-
fully made. No minor assembly can in such cases sit in judgment
over its own actions, although reconsideration of previous decisions
is, of course, always permissible. If an appeal is made to Classis
or Synod, the appellant must always notify the minor assembly con-

140

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

cemed and thus give opportunity to the minor assembly to present
the case from its point of view at the major assembly.

7. Which matters pertain to “the Churches in common”?

In general, as Bouwman states,* this phrase concerns matters mu-
tually agreed upon by the Churches, and which concern continued de-
nominational fellowship and the maintenance of principles set forth
in the Bible, and (consequently) in the Confessional Standards and
Church Order.

The Church Order specifies in Article 2 what is to be observed by
all the Churches regarding the offices in Christ’s Church; in Article 3,
that none shall assume to preach in the Churches without a lawful
call; how one may be called, in Articles 4 and 5; support and emerita-
tion of Ministers is regulated in Articles 11 and 13; matters to be
observed regarding Elders and Deacons are covered by Articles 22
to 27; when Deacons may be and when they must be added to the
Consistory, Article 37; missionary work, Article 51; subscription to
the Forms of Unity by all office-bearers, Article 53 and 54; matters
pertaining to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, Articles 56 to 64; songs
to be sung in the Churches, Article 69; solemnization of marriages,
Article 70; disciplinary matters, Articles 70 to 81; certification of
membership, Article 82. (This enumeration is not exhaustive.) All
matters thus regulated in the Church Order pertain to the Churches
in general, and the major assemblies may take action regarding them
directly as far as their general aspect is concerned. But no Classis
or Synod may take to hand a matter which is clearly the affair of a
certain Consistory, though it should concern a matter regulated for
all the Churches^ in the Church Order.

And thus matters which are of a general interest for all the
Churches of a Classis or Synod may be taken directly before these
bodies, and these bodies may also take action upon such matters upon
their own initiative. So, f.i., our Synod may decide to initiate a con-
sideration concerning the proper mode of observing the Lord’s Supper,
whenever it so desires, for this is a matter which concerns all the
Churches, and not just one or a few. For this same reason individual
members even have the right of requesting classical or synodical
action, through petitions addressed directly to said assemblies, when
it concerns matters which pertain to the Churches in common.

ARTICLE XXXI.

If any one complains that he has been wronged by the deci-
sion of a minor assembly , he shall have the right to appeal to
a major ecclesiastical assembly , and whatever may be agreed
upon by a majority vote shall be considered settled and bind-
ing, unless it be proved to conflict [with the Word of God or
with the Articles of the Church Order , as long as they are not
changed by a General Synod.

RIGHT OF APPEAL AND VALIDITY OF ECCLESIASTICAL
DECISIONS

Article 31 concerns itself with two principles of Reformed Church
government, namely the right of appeal, and the validity of ecclesias-

•Bouwman: Gereformeerd Kerkrecht, 1934, II, 37.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

141

tical decisions. Both of these principles are very important and merit
full consideration.

1. Why does the Church Order provide for right of appeal?

In the first place because our assemblies (Consistories, Classes, and
Synods) are not infallible. We have the promise of the Christ that
the Holy Spirit will guide us into all the truth (John 16:13). But no-
where does the Bible say that the Spirit will guide us inerrantly. As
individual Christians, and as office-bearers at ecclesiastical assemblies,
we can and do err. The Word of God is inerrant. But the Church is
not. Consequently, if any one feels convinced that a minor assembly
has made a mistake through an error of judgment or from neglect
of duty, such a one should have the right of appeal to the assembly
next in order. A major assembly being composed of a larger number
of brethren, and often further removed from the personal elements
which so easily enter its cases on home territory, may sustain an
aggrieved brother, or it may serve to convince the party concerned
regarding the correctness of the minor assemblies’ stand.

Right of appeal also follows from the fact that all believers par-
take of Christ’s threefold office. Each believer as prophet, priest, and
king under Christ has a right to be heard and to receive full con-
sideration. Moreover, denial of the right of appeal would often work
havoc practically. Many a man, who now appeals, would otherwise
nurse his griefs and create unrest and division perhaps.

2. To which cases does this right of appeal apply?

To cases in which one “complains that he has been wronged by
the decision of a minor assembly.” Not every adverse decision can
therefore constitute a just cause for appeal. Only then may one ap-
peal to a major assembly, when he is convinced that he has been
wronged; that is, when according to his conception an injustice has
been committed. The very word appeal would also signify this. Only
he who is in. pressing circumstances makes an appeal for help. So
only he who feels that he has been wronged is justified to make an
appeal. Jansen (Korte Verklaring, etc.) uses a very apt illustration.
Says he in effect: suppose a Consistory decides that the morning
service is to begin at 10 instead of at 9 o’clock. One of the members
may not like this change, but that in itself does not give him just
reasons for an appeal to Classis. But if the new hour makes worship
for him, and perhaps others, impossible, whereas all can worship at
the old hour,' then he and these others are being wronged, and this
injustice would constitute a just basis for complaint and appeal.

No one should conclude from the foregoing that it is our opinion
that Article 31 limits appeals to cases of personal injury. He who
feels that a minor assembly has come to an incorrect and dangerous
conclusion, contrary to the Bible, the confessional writings, the Church
Order, or the welfare of the Churches, may and should indeed appeal
to Classis or Synod.

3. To which body must the appeal be made?

To major assemblies. Consistorial decisions may be appealed to
Classis. Classical decisions may be appealed to Synod. In exception-
al cases one may appeal from one assembly to the next. That is from
one classical gathering to the next classical gathering, or from one
synodical gathering to the following synodical gathering. But, as a
rule, this is both needless and out of place.

The Reformed system of church government knows of no appeal to

142

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

the congregation. The independent systems ( Congregationalists,
Baptists, etc.) do. In these systems decisions of the ruling body of
the local Church may be challenged and brought before the congre-
gation. However, we find no warrant for this in Scripture. Christ
vested the power of government over His Church in the office-bearers.
When the question of circumcision disturbed the apostolic Church,
the matter was not placed before the congregation as such, but be-
fore a meeting of Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem (Acts 15).

4. Proper time limits and methods for appeals.

The article says nothing as to proper time limits to be observed
in cases of appeal. Neither have we any classical or synodical deci-
sion seeking to control this matter. There has been a time when
some Reformed Churches stipulated that appeals to be valid had to
be registered inside of three weeks. Others allowed a six weeks’ limit.
But such limitations proved to be rather arbitrary and harmful.
Some matters are exceedingly complicated, and a time limit of a few
days or weeks for the registration of appeals may cause damage.
Moreover, there was always the danger that proper appeals would be
ruled out of order for the simple reason that they came a day or
more late.

However, appeals should be made as soon as possible and not be-
yond a reasonable length of time after the decision by which the ap-
pellant claims to have been wronged has been taken. The Churches
of Holland (Gereformeerde Kerken) adopted the following rule in
1893: “ Appeals concerning any decision of an ecclesiastical assembly
must be made before the following major assembly to which the ap-
peal is directed meets, the clerk of the assembly by whose decision
the appellant feels aggrieved, having been notified. The parties con-
cerned shall be notified regarding every decision made.” This is no
doubt a good general rule. But even so there must remain room for
exceptions. One might, f.i., be hindered by sickness from complying
with this rule.

Multiplication of rules and stipulations in ecclesiastical matters
often works for more harm than good. We should be very careful
on this score. Let each assembly judge with good-will and Christian
forbearance as to the propriety of each appeal directed to it. This
is the unwritten rule which we have followed thus far and it seems
to have worked well.

What should we answer as to the proper method of appeal? Con-
cerning this Jansen recommends that an appeal should include the
following points: (1) Presentation of the matter at issue in the ap-
pellant’s own words. (2) Quotation of the official decision concerning
which the appeal is being made. (3) Enumeration of the reasons be-
cause of which the appellant feels himself aggrieved and upon which
his appeal rests. (4) Petition that the major assembly declare for
reasons adduced, that the minor assembly’s decision was erroneous
and unfounded.

It should also be noted here that the Reformed Churches of former
years have always permitted an appellant to explain and defend his
position by means of another, called “een mond,” i.e., a mouth. Such
an advocate, however, had to be a member of one of the Reformed
Churches in good and regular standing, and he was of course expected
to respect the rule of the assembly and to deport himself in a worthy
manner. From recent Presbyterian trials it will have been noted that
this same custom is honored by these Churches. This usage and
privilege is altogether defensible and praise-worthy. One may have a

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

143

just ground of complaint and yet not have the ability to make a de-
sirable presentation. It is to the Churches' own welfare that the ap-
pellant receive every legitimate opportunity to defend his position or
to clarify the matter at hand.

5. If a member appeals to a major assembly, should the minor as-
sembly involved suspend action regarding the matter concerned
until the appeal has been acted upon?

The question is often asked: Should decisions of minor assemblies
await execution pending an appeal ? We would answer in the affirma-
tive. If' at all possible no assembly must begin to execute a decision
the correctness of which is to be judged by a major assembly. To il-
lustrate, supposing some one objects to the installation of a certain
brother as Elder, and that his objection is overruled, and that he ap-
peals to Classis; then if the Consistory would proceed with the instal-
lation, mid after a few weeks Classis should sustain the appellant,
such a Consistory would find itself in a very difficult position.

If and when possible, action on appeals should be awaited. Some-
times, however, this is not possible, or not advisable. Thus in the il-
lustration at hand, if the appellant were not sustained by Classis he
might appeal to Synod. This would mean a long extended delay as to
the brother's installation (if synodical decision were awaited), which
would be unfair to both the Church concerned and the Elder-elect con-
cerned. The rule should be one appeal. And during that appeal, in
all possible cases, action on the appeal should be awaited. If an
appellant feels burdened to such an extent that he cannot submit after
the first appeal, then let him proceed. But as a rule he should not
ask or expect the minor assembly to suspend action.

6. Can a major assembly invalidate a decision of a minor assembly?

No. In the Church of Rome this would most assuredly be the case.

Also with Churches which regard the denomination to be the real
Church or Church unit, and the local congregations and the minor
assemblies of the Churches as divisions of the one real Church. But
according to the Reformed conception and set-up, Biblically formed and
historically conditioned, the local congregation is the unit, a complete
Church of Christ. Major assemblies most certainly can deliberate and
decide. But if their decisions are contrary to decisions taken by minor
assemblies, these minor assemblies must conform themselves to the
conclusions of the major assemblies. Either by actual reconsideration
of the question, or by silent acquiescense. As a rule the latter method
is followed. Practically it does not make much difference whether one
looks upon an adverse decision of a major assembly as an invalida-
tion or nullification of the minor assembly’s decision, or as being es-
sentially an advice, and no decision to nullify the minor assembly’s
conclusion. The minor assembly as a rule follows the advise of the
major assembly. And it must do so, inasmuch as all the Churches
have agreed to submit themselves to the opinion of the majority and
to abide by decisions mutually taken. Only when the Word of God
forbids may any Church or group of Churches refrain from abiding by
the decision of major assemblies. But for all this, maior assemblies
do not dictate, and they do not have the inherent right to invalidate
decisions of minor assemblies. The local Church or groups of Churches
do not receive superior orders which they must obey without further
question, but they receive conclusions reached by common consent, and
as such they will respect these conclusions. And as such they will ac-
cept them as their own, either formally, or by silent acquiescence.

144

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

7. All decisions made by majority vote.

Article 31 further stipulates that . . whatever may be agreed upon
by a majority vote shall be considered settled and binding’.” What-
ever, therefore, the majority of those entitled to vote decide, becomes
binding for all. And bv a majority vote we simply mean more than
one half of the total number of votes cast. Sometimes the majority
may be large; sometimes very small, one vote being sufficient to con-
stitute a majority.

Sometimes certain organizations decide by plurality vote. The larg-
est number of votes, though less than one half of the actual votes
decides. This method, however, is out of place at our ecclesiastical
meetings. It might foster the evil of permitting minorities to rule
over majorities, which is least of all desirable in church affairs. (How-
ever, when the matter at hand concerns no principle or policy, but the
appointment to minor functions, the assembly may decide that he who
receives the largest number of votes shall be considered elected, pro-
vided all agree to this method. This method of procedure should
always be exceptional.)

No ecclesiastical gathering should be satisfied when decisions are
made by bare or small majorities, for this is never ideal. At our Con-
sistory meetings as well as at our major assemblies we should seek to
convince each other from the Word of God, and we should seek to
persuade each other with arguments in harmony with our confessional
writings and our Church Order. Decisions should be arrived at with
as much unanimity as possible. That will make for unity of purpose
and endeavor. That was also the clear conception of things as held
by our post-reformation fathers. For instance, the Synod of 1571
decided: “All matters shall be presented by the President specifically
and orderly; he shall also gain the opinion of the whole assembly
concerning the matter at hand, and take the vote of those eligible to
vote, after which he will announce in the maim the opinion of the ma-
jority; the Clerk will record the results and read the same to the as-
sembly, in order that the decision may be established by common con-
sent.”1

Jan&en informs us that the earlier assemblies in the Reformed
Churches of the Netherlands would vote twice on every issue. The
first vote was taken to determine the opinion of the majority. Then
a second vote followed for the purpose of making the expressed opinion
of the majority the unanimous decision of the whole gathering. Thus
matters would literally be agreed upon by common consent.2

An example of this common consent method of procedure is also
illustrated in the final article of the Church Order, Article 86, which
states that the articles of the Church Order have been adopted by
common consent. And this article and its declaration date back to the
very first regular Synod of the Reformed Churches of Holland, the
Synod of Emden, 1571. (Cf. Acts, 1571, Article 53.)

Today we ballot or vote only once on each issue. Does this mean
that minorities are ignored and silenced by majorities, sometimes by
bare majorities? Does it mean that minorities are forced to accept
the opinions of the majorities? No. Whatever is decided by majority
vote becomes settled and binding for all, not against the will of minor-
ities, but by their own consent. Minorities conform themselves volun-
tarily to the officially expressed opinion of the majority, for the sake
of good order and the welfare of the Churches concerned. In other

1. Bouwman: <xereformeerd. Xerkrecht, 1934, II, 54.

2. Jansen: Korte Verklaring, etc.. 1923. pp. 164 and 363.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

145

words, minorities now silently submit themselves to the opinion ex-
pressed by their brethren of the majority. And, let it be said, the
minorities at our ecclesiastical assemblies are in duty bound to do so.
For note that every Church has voluntarily joined itself to the feder-
ation of Churches forming one denomination. Together they have
agreed to cooperate, upon the basis of the Church Order, which Church
Order presupposes and even expresses cooperation on the part of all
the Churches regarding all decisions which agree with the Word of
God and the Church Order in force. Read again the present article:
“• . ; and whatever may be agreed upon by a majority vote shall be
considered settled and binding. . ”

# Furthermore, Biblical example also prescribes submission to deci-
sions mutually taken. (Confer, Acts 15:22-29, especially verse 28.)
The Assembly at Jerusalem made authoritative and binding decisions
for all the Churches.

8. All decisions settled and binding.

Doubtlessly this double expression is used purposefully. Anything
that is settled should not continue .to be the subject of discussion at
ecclesiastical gatherings. That would raise discord and require much
time needed for other matters. The second word, “binding,” indicates
that all the Churches are obligated to live up to the decisions of the
assemblies concerned.

This provision is indeed a jewel of great value. It is as indispen-
sable for Reformed church government as the connecting-rod is for
your car.

However, inasmuch as this principle is important and indispensable
it should never be abused. Let decisions be taken upon due consider-
ation, and only after the majority has endeavored to prove the neces-
sity, permissability and desirability of the matter proposed. And let
us avoid needless multiplication of rules and decisions. And when
conclusions have been reached, let us not begin to advocate a reversal
unless we are fully persuaded that the Churches have erred when
they decided on a certain issue as they did. At times brethren and
Consistories begin to advocate for the reversal of decisions almost as
soon as these decisions have been passed, and often seemingly largely
from personal inclination or opinion, and not so much from the urge of
soul-bom convictions and genuine concern for the Churches.

That which has been mutually decided upon at our assemblies,
should be considered settled, and should be considered binding. And
to this rule the article appends only two general, but all-important
exceptions.

9. Two exceptions to the foregoing rule.

Which are the two exceptions to the foregoing rule? They are
embodied in the concluding statement of Art. 31, and reads as fol-
lows: “. . . unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God or with
the Articles of the Church Order, as long as they are not changed by
a General Synod.”

This exception embodies the great Reformation principle regarding
the supremacy of the Word of God, first of all. The Reformation
recognized no authority above or beside the Bible. The Church of
Rome had virtually elevated the Church through its councils above the
Bible. The Church’s interpretation of God’s Word became binding for
the conscience of all believers. In case of conflict between the Bible
and Rome, the believer was to follow Rome. The Reformation again
made the Bible the final court of appeal, not only for the Churches, but

146

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

also for the individual believers. The Word of God became once more
the only rule for faith and life. Consequently, when our forebears
agreed that all conclusions properly reached at ecclesiastical assem-
blies should be considered settled and binding they did not neglect
to add: . . unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God.” If
a conclusion proves to be contrary to the Bible the matter is not to be
considered settled and binding. Then the matter may again be dis-
cussed and then the decision need not be adhered to. For that which
is contrary to God’s Word should be altered as soon as possible and
does not bind the believer.

The question is sometimes asked: To whom must it be proved that
a certain decision is in conflict with the Bible, before a Church or an
individual may count that a matter is not settled and binding? Must
the ecclesiastical assembly which made the decision first declare that
the unBiblical nature of the decision has been proven, before any one
may withhold submission? Or may a Church or an individual with-
hold submission when that Church or individual is fully convinced that
the conclusion reached is unBiblical, even before the assembly con-
cerned has reversed its conclusion? The latter by all means. The
Church or the Churches cannot bind the conscience. The Bible only,
as God’s infallible and authoritative Word, can do this. If one is
convinced that the Churches bid him to do one thing, and the Bible
another, he must follow what he believes to be Scriptural. Of course,
he should study the matter carefully and prayerfully before refusing
submission. Rashness would be altogether out of place. And of course
he must do all he can to show the assembly concerned what he be-
lieves to be the error of its way.

If after due consideration the assembly concerned decides that its
decision is unBiblical, then instant reversal is naturally in order. If,
however, the appellant cannot persuade the assembly, and the assem-
bly fails to persuade the appellant, and the appellant does not feel
free before God to submit and conform himself, then the Churches
must bear with the aggrieved brother, if at all possible. If, however,
the matter be of far-reaching import, then the aggrieved brother
should be asked to conform and submit as long as he remains to be a
member of the Church concerned. If his conscience will not at all per-
mit this, he should ultimately affiliate with a Church not so binding
his conscience'.

There is a second exception. If any decision is contrary to the
Church Order in force, the matter need not be considered settled and
binding. Denominational unity and co-operation rests upon a set of
definite rules, mutually agreed upon. The 86 articles of our Church
Order are these rules for us. No decision should ever be made which
runs counter to these agreements of federation. If such decisions are
made these need not be considered settled or binding. The aggrieved
Church or individual should make its or his mind known to the as-
sembly concerned and ask for a revision or nullification. In the mean-
time the Church or party appealing or petitioning should conform it-
self or himself to the decision in question if at all possible. But no
one should be urged to do so against his conscience. If the assembly,
after due consideration, finds that the decision in question does not
run counter to the Church Order, then the party or parties concerned
should submit and conform, as long as he remains a member of one of
the Churches concerned. But again, in minor matters Consistories and
other assemblies may exercise a great deal of tolerance, bearing the
weaker brother according to Paul’s instruction to the Church at Rome

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 147

(Romans 14), meanwhile instructing him with patience and kindness
in Christ.

The concluding words of Article 31 indicate that the Church Order
may be revised, as also Article 86 clearly states, but only by the Gen-
eral Synod. But as long as it is not changed it should be respected.
To ignore it, as is sometimes done, or to decide things out of harmony
with the Church Order, constitute an essential undermining of our
whole denominational or ecclesiastical life, and is dangerous to the
purity of the Church of Christ as we represent it.

ARTICLE XXXII

The proceedings of all assemblies shall begin by calling upon
the Name of God and be closed unth thanksgiving .

BEGINNING AND ENDING ALL ASSEMBLIES WITH PRAYER

1. The history and value of this ruling.

The incorporation of this provision in our Church Order goes back
to the first regular Synod of our mother Churches, i. e., the Synod of
Emden, 1571, which ruled: “When thus assembled, the Minister of the
Church where the meeting is held, or if the Church is vacant, the
president of the former meeting, shall lead in prayer with a view to
the election of a president, an assistant and a clerk. . . . The president,
having been appointed, shall then lead in prayer with a view to all the
work before the gathering/’*

But in 1581, at the Synod of Middelburg, the provision for two
distinct prayers was altered. The provision, namely, for a separate
prayer regarding the election of directors for the meeting, was
dropped, and the wording of a ruling pertaining to the second prayer
was retained so that we now read: “The proceedings of all assemblies
shall begin by calling upon the Name of God. . .” Dutch: “De hande-
lingen aller samenkomsten. . .” Originally the word “proceedings”
in this article therefore referred to the actual questions requiring
action on the part of the assembly. Later the term was taken to
refer to all work performed, including the opening and closing of
the meetings. And thus matters stand today.

The provision of Article 32 might be considered unnecessary. Why
should our Church Order stipulate that ecclesiastical meetings should
begin and end with prayer? Would any serious-minded group of men
think of doing otherwise?

We may be happy that the ruling is actually unnecessary for us
at present. May it ever remain to be such! But what could be more
important than prayer and thanksgiving at our ecclesiastical gather-
ings? All our work would be fruitless without the Lord’s blessing.
And problem upon problem remains unsolved except the Father of
lights (James 1:17) enlightens us. Then surely no Church Order
would be complete without recognition of these facts and without defi-
nite mention of these important numbers on the program of every
ecclesiastical gathering. Besides, in days of spiritual decline, the
good custom provided for in this article sometimes tends to fall into

♦Bouwman: Q-eref. Xerfcrecht, 1934, II, p. 93.

148

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

disuse. Think of the gross neglect regarding family prayers in many
Christian circles. And so it is not altogether unnecessary that Article
32 should occupy the place of a constant guardian against neglect of
prayer at our ecclesiastical assemblies.

2. The matter of free and liturgical prayers.

Should those who lead in prayer at our assemblies use words of
their own choice, or should they use one of our liturgical prayers
written for ecclesiastical assemblies? The use of one of our form
prayers for ecclesiastical gatherings is sometimes advisable. But no
one is bound to these. And when there is more than one session, per-
haps several sessions, the constant repetition of the same prayer
would not be conducive to the spirit of prayer. As a rule a free
prayer is to be preferred to a form prayer.

However, if one is called upon to lead whose talents are very much
limited, then let such a one use one of our form prayers, written and
approved for these gatherings. Furthermore, when sharp differences
arise, particularly when a brother’s name or standing is involved, it
may be well to use a liturgical prayer in preference to a free prayer,
to avoid offense. We so much need God’s special guidance and the
control of His Spirit when the atmosphere is tense and the situation
perhaps critical. And yet, under special circumstances, it is hard to
pray objectively, so that all the members of the meeting can say amen
in their hearts to the prayer uttered. But when a form prayer is
used, no one can be offended, and all should be able to pray fervently.

But again, as a rule, a free prayer is to be preferred above a form
prayer, especially when there are several sessions. For although the
article, strictly speaking, only calls for prayer at the beginning of
the assembly and at its close, certainly our custom of beginning and
ending each session with prayer is altogether proper. And further-
more, when one chooses his own words and thoughts in prayer, his
prayer can be made appropriate to the special problems and conditions
which obtain.

Our Churches have one approved “Opening Prayer for Ecclesiastical
Assemblies,” and one “Closing Prayer for Ecclesiastical Assemblies.”
(Cf. Psalter Hymnal, appended pp. 80, 81.) There is also an “Opening
Prayer for the Meeting of the Deacons” (Idem, pp. 81, 82.) This
prayer does not date back to Reformation days as do the others, but
to the beginning of the 18th century. It was never officially approved
at the time of its incorporation into the liturgy, as were the two first
mentioned prayers. But for more than 200 years it has been acknowl-
edged as one of our official prayers. And by its publication along
with the other prayers upon decision of our Synod of 1934, it really
stands fully approved.

3. Pre-service prayer by Consistories.

Does Article 32 require pre-service prayers by the Consistory?
No, it does not. The Church Order does not regulate congregational
worship. And this article refers only to consistorial, classical, and
synodical gatherings, the official assemblies of the Churches.

Seemingly the good custom of a pre-service meeting for prayer by
the Consistory was born from the pressure of circumstances. During
the days of the Secession in Holland (Afscheiding, 1834, and follow-
ing years) congregational worship was often disturbed by the inter-
ference of the government, or antagonistic citizens. The office-bearers
in charge of a service therefore felt the need of first asking for God’s
protection and blessing, praying in particular that God might qualify

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

149

His servant to bring His Word without fear and hindrance, and with
His indispensable blessing. The spirit of a revived faith in God and
His Christ as our only Redeemer and of man’s absolute dependence
on God’s Spirit in the work of grace, no doubt also urged them to
seek God’s blessing before each service.

The Churches of the second exodus from the corrupt Hervormde
Kerk, the movement known as the Doleantie, 1886, quickly adopted
this good usage from the Secession Churches.

Moreover, pre-service prayers by the Consistories are also required
by the fact that every service is in charge of the Consistory. Well
may the office-bearers therefore pray for God’s benediction upon the
Minister and the people of God who are about to serve Him.

4. Sermons or devotional addresses, etc., at our assemblies.

Does Article 32 require the preaching of sermons, or the inclusion
of devotional addresses at our assemblies? It does not. Article 32
clearly stipulates that prayer and thanksgiving shall be offered with
a view to the matters which must be transacted. The ecclesiastical
assemblies are not meant to be meetings for worship or instruction.
Consistory meetings as well as classical and synodical gatherings are
assemblies of the Church or the Churches at which the business of
the Church or Churches is acted upon. They are not inspirational
conventions or Bible Institutes. The Churches must be governed ac-
cording to God’s Word and according to the varying conditions as
they arise from time to time. This is the business of the assemblies.
Inspiration we need. Increased knowledge we need. Worship and
praise we must. But all this is not the business of ecclesiastical as-
semblies.

Does this mean that we should not be devotional at our Church
gatherings? Not at all. Let the meetings begin with prayer and
praise and song. And if a gathering feels that a brief address by
one of the brethren upon a passage of God’s Word is desirable, there
can be no objections. Only let those who so address our assemblies
preferably choose passages which stand directly related to the gov-
ernment of God’s Church. But never should our assemblies make a
specialty of addresses and devotionals. The correct government of
our Churches is so all-important and urgent that we cannot afford to
change the character of our ecclesiastical assemblies. We may not
do so! Neither, of course, should we permit them to become mere
“business meetings,” that is, meetings at which the financial affairs
and the external management of our ecclesiastical life is discussed
and acted upon. That would be far worse. Let us keep balance and
spend the major part of our precious time and efforts for the promo-
tion of the spiritual welfare of our people and their Churches.

Which songs should we sing at our ecclesiastical assemblies? Only
those that have been officially approved by Synod for worship in our
Churches. In the past it has happened that even our Synod would
use books not synodically approved. Why should we do this? The
very excellent content of our Psalter and of our Psalter Hymnal makes
the use of other books at our assemblies wholly unnecessary. To do
so encourages irregularity. If our office-bearers, at official gatherings
of the Churches use unapproved books, what then will we say if local
Churches introduce such books for worship?

Is it necessary that the Bible be read at the opening of our ecclesi-
astical assemblies? In consideration of what has already been said
we would answer negatively. It is not necessary. However, it is a
good custom. The Word of God should occupy a central and control-

150

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ling place in our lives. Therefore, it is altogether appropriate to
read a fitting portion of God's Word as we begin to deliberate in the
affairs of God’s people and His Church.

Should we encourage the giving” of all kinds of addresses at our
classical and synodical gatherings by men representing various good
causes? At our ecclesiastical gatherings we come together to trans-
act the business of the Churches, and to promote their spiritual wel-
fare, and not to listen to various addresses and inspirational speeches.
Consequently, addresses by representatives of various agencies should
be few. Those f.i. that wish to address our Synods should receive
permission from Synod itself. And the privilege of addressing Synod
should only be extended to applicants, if Synod is convinced that the
brother’s cause and message should be heard by Synod; never as a
matter of mere good-will and courtesy.

ARTICLE XXXIII.

Those who are delegated to the assemblies shall bring with
them their credentials and instructions , signed by those sending
them, and they shall have a vote in all matters, except such as
particularly concern their persons or Churches.

CREDENTIALS AND INSTRUCTIONS; RIGHT OF VOTE AT
MAJOR ASSEMBLIES

1. Credentials.

The main content of this article goes back to the first regular
Synod of the Reformed Churches of Holland (Emden, 1571). Proper
certificates, testifying that those who claimed to be delegates from
a certain Church or group of Churches, (Classis or Particular Synod),
were actually delegated, were necessary especially then.

The Churches were just beginning to reach a period of stability,
having gone through a long struggle of reformation. Moreover, they
often knew but little of each other, distances being much greater than
now, inasmuch as modem means of travel were still unknown. And
the bloody persecutions of Reformation days had prevented them
from establishing regular contacts with their fellow-believers. So the
Churches felt that all who claimed to be the legal representatives of
a Reformed Church or group of Churches should carry with them
proper certificates, verifying their delegation. Thus fraudulent im-
postors and enemies of the Churches would be excluded.

Moreover, our fathers no doubt felt that at official gatherings of
the Churches only those should be received who came with official
credentials. And so it is still for us today. The danger of fraud is
now very small. But certain affairs simply require official action. It
would be improper to organize an ecclesiastical assembly merely upon
the testimony of those who claim to be delegates. All such should be
able to produce a black-on-white letter of appointment and delegation.
This is too self-evident to require further discussion.

2. Instructions.

Those delegated to our assemblies must come with authority to act.
It must be very clear that the representatives of the various Churches

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

151

are more than visiting delegates. Thus the assembly concerned will
know that all its members are there as real representatives of the
Churches which sent them. And decisions made will thus have binding
effect for all the Churches assembled.

And even as a written certificate of delegation should be produced
and presented^ at the assembly meeting, so also a written copy of the
instructions given; that is the authority delegated should be presented.

What is included under the term instructions, as used in the present
article ?

First of all a charge on the part of the sending body to its repre-
sentatives to help decide on all matters which are brought before the
meeting in due order* It being understood and expressed, however,
that they shall take no part in, nor assume responsibility for matters
which are contrary to the Bible as interpreted in the doctrinal stand-
ards of the Churches, or which are contrary to the rules of govern-
ment agreed upon. Our Synod of 1888 ruled that all delegates to our
major assemblies should be charged and authorized to help transact
all matters brought before the assemblies in due order, according to
the Word of God, as interpreted in the Forms of Unity, and the ac-
cepted Church Order. This ruling was made to assure the Churches
that all the delegates would come properly authorized. And this
charge includes the right and duty to consider all legitimately pre-
sented grievances and protests.

In the second place the instructions which delegates to major as-
semblies must bring with them according to Article 33 would concern
matters which the sending body itself brings to the meeting. In other
words, if the Church or Classis has any overtures or questions for
the assembly, these should be written out on the credential letter.
Instructions written on separate sheets of paper should be properly
signed as well as the credential letter. The signing is, of course, done
by the president and clerk of the sending and authorizing body.

3. Should the charge and authorization to delegates be specific
or general?

The instructions to delegates should, as a rule, always be general.
To illustrate, no Consistory should endeavor to instruct its delegates
to Classis how to vote on any particular issue. Each delegate must
use his own best judgment, and then vote as his conscience before
God bids him vote. Abstractly and inherently the Churches would
have a right to give their delegates a definite mandate, telling them
how to vote. But the true welfare of the Churches requires that all
delegates have their hands free and unbound. For our assemblies are
not merely meetings at which the votes of the various Churches are
recorded. But they are gatherings at which the problems and the
affairs of the Churches are mutually considered and decided upon.
Our gatherings are and should remain deliberative assemblies. And
our delegates should not be reduced to the role of voting machines.

It is a very good practice for the sending bodies to consider the
major issues which will require action at the assemblies to be held.
That promotes general interest and counteracts hurtful ignorance.
And that will help those that go as delegates to the major gatherings
to know the mind of their brethren at home. But the delegates should
not be bound. After a good discussion at the major assembly they
may feel compelled to vote exactly opposite from their first con-
templations.

Only when the circumstances are very extraordinary, as when a
sending body knows all the issues involved in a specific case, would

152

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

it be justified to instruct its delegates how to vote. So, for example,
at the great Synod of Dort, 1618-19, some Particular Synods had in-
structed their delegates previously to vote so as to maintain the purity
of doctrine, i.e., against the Arminians. Or as Jansen states, sending
bodies can only give definite instruction as to how delegates should
vote regarding matters which are clearly expressed in Holy Writ, and
concerning which therefore further deliberation is unnecessary, and
change of opinion out of place.

What else should credential letters contain in order to be complete ?
An assurance on the part of the sending body that it will abide by
all the decisions of the assembly taken in conformity with Holy Writ
as interpreted in the Three Forms of Unity (the Confession, the Hei-
delberg Catechism, and the Five Articles of Dort). The sending body
ought to state in its credentials that it will regard such decisions as
settled and binding, and that it will faithfully help to put them into
practice.

Really an assurance as here referred to is implied and understood
in the instruction already discussed. It is also essential to all de-
nominational unity and cooperation. But it is well to. give deliberate
expression to this obligation and intent, inasmuch as some Churches
and individuals at times forget these matters. The spirit of inde-
pendentism sometimes asserts itself, when cooperation should hold sway.

The credential letter, almost needless to say, is properly concluded
with Christian greetings and a committal to the grace of God and the
guidance of His Spirit.

4. The Signature.

Why is it added: “signed by those sending them”? Years ago, in
the land of our forefathers, when the relationship between State and
Church was very close, the town or city officials would sometimes sign
the credentials of ecclesiastical delegates Our fathers, however,
feared State dominance and so they soon objected to this practice and
insisted that the ecclesiastical body sending should also write and
sign the credentials and instructions. Moreover, every official docu-
ment must be properly signed.

The phrase, “signed by those sending them,” therefore originally
provided for the signing of all credentials, and for the signing by
the proper authorities. For us today it merely means that no letter
of delegation is valid except it be properly signed.

5. Why does the Church Order provide that delegates shall not vote
when a matter particularly concerns their persons or Churches?

As a matter of common sense and fairness. It is very hard for us
to judge calmly and objectively when we ourselves are concerned. Yet
every decision should be objective. And so the Churches have wisely
agreed in the interest of the Kingdom, that those who are directly
involved in a matter before an ecclesiastical gathering shall not vote.
Let the other delegates decide and then let all abide by the opinion
of the majority.

Abstractly it might be reasoned, that all lawful delegates have a
right to vote in all matters coming before the gathering. But as a
matter of expedience we have agreed to forego our rights when we
ourselves are directly involved.

It is also true that in certain cases it would be manifestly unfair
to have a delegate sit in judgment over himself. Particularly if he
should stand accused on any score by such as are not delegated and
who therefore would have no right to vote.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

153

6. Advisory votes.

There is one class of brethren to whom the Church Order accords
advisory votes at classical gatherings. Art. 42, n. 1. provides that if
a Church have more than one Minister, the Minister or Ministers not
delegated to a certain classical meeting shall also have the right to
attend Classis “with advisory vote.” Such Ministers are therefore
privileged to go not only to Classis, but are permitted to speak their
mind on any matter up for consideration. They help Classis in all its
deliberations, but they do not have a decisive vote. The membership
of a Classis does not consist of Ministers and Elders, but of Churches,
Each Church is entitled to two votes and no more.

Visiting Ministers, i.e., Ministers of Christian Reformed Churches
belonging to another Classis who happen to visit a Classical gather-
ing, are often accorded the privilege of the floor, i.e., advisory vote.
There is nothing against this practice as long as such visitors do not
abuse the privilege extended to them by asking the floor too often.

Our seminary professors are expected to be present at Synod in
order to serve Synod in an advisory capacity. They have an advisory
vote on all matters and serve as advisors and on the various Ad-
visory Committees of Synod.

Is it proper and in harmony with our Church Order to extend the
right of vote to Ministers not delegated? No it is not. It has hap-
pened that Home Missionaries, f.i., would be given the right to vote
by a Classis in spite of the fact that they were not authorized and
delegated by any Church. Should our Home Missionaries then be
excluded from an active part in our Classical gatherings? Not at all.
They should be delegated by their Consistories when their turn comes,
just as regular Ministers are. At all other Classical gatherings they
receive an advisory vote, as Art. 42 stipulates. In many instances our
Home Missionaries will be the Ministers of some small Churches hav-
ing no other Ministers. In such cases they naturally go to Classis
regularly as full-fledged delegates.

ARTICLE XXXIV.

In all assemblies there shall be not only a president, but also
a clerk to keep a faithful record of all important matters.

ASSEMBLY OFFICERS

1. The officers specified in Article 34.

In Dutch the officers of an ecclesiastical gathering are known as
moderators. The officers as a body are designated as “het modera-
men.” The word “moderamen” is Latin, and signifies that by which
anything is governed and managed. Rendered in English this term
would therefore read, “the management” or “the body of directors.”
But the expression has no direct English equivalent. We do speak of
moderators. A moderator is (1) “one who restrains or regulates,” or
(2) “The presiding officer of a meeting, especially in the Presbyterian
and Congregational Churches.” *

We use the expression “assembly officers” although the word “offi-
cer” is really too official, too authoritative for the present purpose.

•Funk and Wagnall’s Dictionary.

154

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Compare our “office” with the Dutch “ambt,” and our “office-bearer”
with the Dutch “ambtsdrager.” They who are called upon to lead an
ecclesiastical assembly do not occupy an authoritative position, as
f.i. our Ministers, Elders, and Deacons do in their respective offices.
They who lead our ecclesiastical assemblies merely guide and direct
the assemblies as self-governing gatherings. When using the term
“assembly officers”, these facts should be borne in mind.

Which officers does Article 34 specify? Only two: a president and
a clerk. The very oldest redactions of our Church Order, dating back
to 1571 and 1578, also provided for the appointment of an “assessor,”
that is, an assistant to the president. But in 1581 this provision for
this third officer for ecclesiastical assemblies was dropped, seemingly
because it was judged that ecclesiastical gatherings do not always
require an assistant president, as f. i. our Consistory meetings. Yet
today all our Consistories have a vice-president, an assistant Clerk, a
treasurer, and often other minor functionaries. Our Synods also in-
variably elect not only a president and a clerk, but also a vice-presi-
dent and an assistant clerk. Yet our classical gatherings as a rule
have no assistant president.

It is certainly advisable for our classical gatherings to choose an
assistant president as well as a president. The assistant president
relieves the president whenever necessary; he is asked to preside by
the president when the latter wishes to address the gathering or
when the matter at hand concerns the person of the president; he
reminds the president of any item or point of procedure which the
latter may overlook, etc. The appointment of an assistant president
by a Classis is certainly not against the Church Order, though the
Church Order does not require it. (Classis Pella has a rule that the
Minister next in order to preside according to Article 41, acts as as-
sistant president.) However, it would not be amiss, when a new re-
daction of the Church Order is prepared, to restore the old provision
of 1571 and 1578 to Article 34.

2. What should be remarked regarding the nature of the position of
assembly officers?

First of all, as has been indicated, that they do not occupy positions
of superior authority above their brethren. Theirs is merely a posi-
tion of leadership. They do not hold an office investing them with in-
herent superior authority. They are “directors” charged to direct the
affairs of the assembly concerned. The original Latin term “modera-
men” was doubtless chosen by our fathers to stress this fact.

In the second place, their work and charge is temporary. They are
appointed for the length of the assembly only. Their charge ends
when the assembly ends. Consequently they do not occupy a position
different from other office-bearers, the assembly having disbanded.
Presbyterian denominations seem to regard their assembly presidents
as holding their offices until a successor has been elected at the next
assembly. Our Classes and Synods, however, know of no permanent
officers. It is true that our minor assemblies, i.e., our Consistories,
are organized on a permanent basis. But Consistories are the gov-
erning bodies of our ecclesiastical units, the individual Churches.
Consistories are therefore permanent bodies. But even so the Church
Order provides that if a Church have more than one Minister, these
shall preside in turn.

Anything which might lead to the errors and faults of hierarchical
dominance has been avoided in our Church Order.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

155

3. The work of clerks.

It is the duty of the clerks of our various assemblies to keep a
record of all important matters transacted. Accurate record should
be kept: (1) so that the Church or Churches may know with precision
what has been decided in any given instance. At Consistory meetings,
f j., the minutes are referred to again and again to determine what
has been decided at some previous meeting. Without an accurate
record, confusion and misunderstanding and ill-will would be multi-
plied. (2) To avoid needless duplication of work accurate records are
also necessary. A matter thoroughly discussed and acted upon and
properly recorded as a rule need not be reconsidered, unless circum-
stances have altered themselves considerably, or if it be proven that
an error has been made. Yet without a good record the same straw
would be thrashed repeatedly. Even now, though we have good
records, this sometimes happens. (3) And furthermore, we should
preserve our decisions and deliverances for the benefit of posterity.
Later generations may profit by our work, even as we are profiting
by means of the records kept by our forefathers. The lessons of his-
tory are ever so extremely valuable, also in the field of church
government.

What should our clerks record? Not the discussions and opinions
put forward and offered for consideration at our assemblies, but only
the conclusions reached together with the reasons or grounds for such
conclusions, if the matter is of any import at all. It is not wise to
enter upon the official and permanent records of our assemblies the
discussions and opinions offered, especially not if the names of the
brethren are mentioned, as f.i. was done in the early records of our
Christian Reformed major assemblies.* Discussions and opinions of-
fered are only scaffolding which is used to rear the building, not the
building itself. It is preparatory work. To record this preliminary
material may hamper the work in that it may exercise a restraining
influence upon discussion. Our assemblies must continue to be delib-
erative gatherings. The true welfare of our Churches demands this.
Moreover, no one could give an accurate reproduction of a discussion
unless he be a court stenographer. Our records should not become
too bulky and too expensive.

4. Sundry matters.

What other matters are worthy of note in this connection? First
of all that the person of the clerk should be a member of the Con-
sistory, preferably an Elder. Treasurers, Building and Ground Com-
mittees, etc., can under certain circumstances be well chosen from
those not holding office. To do so may save the Elders much valuable
time which they should use for the spiritual upbuilding of the Church.
But the record of Consistory meetings contain many matters which,
for the good of all, the Consistory only should know.

What name should we give to our assembly records? The records
of our Consistories and Classes we usually call minutes; those of our
Synods, Acts.

Minutes, as the Dutch “notulen” (from the Latin notula, derived
from nota, meaning mark or sign) indicates a minute or detailed ac-
count of transactions. Acts, from acta, meaning deeds, decrees, or
resolutions, indicates a record limited to actual resolutions or decisions
passed. Consequently the term “acts” would be the more appropriate
to use for all the records of all our assemblies. Consistories, Classes,
and Synods. However, it is understood by all that in naming the

•Compiled Acts of Synod from 1857-80.

156

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

records of our Consistories and Classes “minutes” we do not mean
to say that these records should be detailed, recording the discussions
as well as the decisions.

Must our assemblies permit any member of our Churches the privi-
lege of reading the minutes for himself? No. They may if they see
fit, but they need not. Particularly the minutes of a Consistory may
contain matters of discipline, which only the Consistory members
should know. But parties involved in any case are entitled to a certi-
fied copy of any and all decisions which touch their case.

When should the records of our assemblies be approved ? Consistory
minutes can conveniently be approved at the next meeting to be held,
but the acts of Classes and Synods should be approved of while these
assemblies are still in session, inasmuch as the membership of these
gatherings change constantly, and no one would recall accurately all
the rulings of a Classis or Synod taken at a previous gathering.
Moreover, these gatherings in themselves are non-continuous. Each
assembly must therefore pass on the correctness of its own records.

What positions do our stated clerks occupy? Synod of 1904 (Art.
132, 7) stipulated that the stated clerks of our Classes and Synod
should jiot be looked upon as permanent clerks, a position unknown
to our Churches, but that a stated clerk is a regular delegate whose
duties are threefold: he inscribes the minutes; he attends to all offi-
cial correspondence; and he prepares the agendum. It is well that the
work of the stated clerks be clearly defined. Jansen does not favor
the appointment of stated clerks. He would rather appoint a Church
for this work so that the Consistory concerned may have the re-
sponsibility. And then he would appoint a different Church for every
next classical or synodical gathering to be held. These Churches
could then also be expected to call the next classical or synodical
gathering to be held. All this, of course, to avoid the danger of as-
sumption of authority. But in the interest of regularity and good
order the custom of appointing stated clerks is no doubt to be pre-
ferred. But let every stated clerk hold himself strictly to the limi-
tations of his charge!

Should classical reports to our church papers be approved by the
Classes before they are published? Preferably, yes. The Classes
should at least indicate what should be included in these reports.
The matter should have some measure of control. Consistories, when
in position to do so, through church bulletins, etc., should also publish
their activities in so far as these are of general interest to the con-
gregation. This will help to create a sympathetic atmosphere, so
highly desirable.

ARTICLE XXXV.

The office of the president is to state and explain the business
to be transacted , to see to it that everyone observe due order
in speaking, to silence the captious and those who cure vehement
in speaking; and to properly discipline them if they refuse to
listen. Furthermore his office shall cease when the assembly
arises.

THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENTS
1. The duty of presidents.

Article 35 is indeed venerable with age. It was formulated in the
year 1571. It was drafted and accepted by the first regular Synod of

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

157

our Churches in Holland meeting in Emden, Germany, during that
year. But it only referred to Particular and General Synods, not to
Consistories and Classes. However, the Synod of Middelburg, 1581,
placed this article before those which regulate the activities of all
our assemblies, Consistories, Classes, and Synods (Articles 37 to 52).
Consequently, from the year 1581 on, Article 35 applies to presidents
of our Synods. However, from the nature of the case it follows that
this article is of primary import for classical and synodical presidents.

The first duty of our ecclesiastical presidents is “to state and ex-
plain the business to be transacted.” For those of our gatherings
which mail printed or typewritten agenda to the delegates or the
delegating bodies, prior to the meeting of the assembly, this task of
our presidents is much simplified, inasmuch as these agenda or
programs give every delegate a rather complete knowledge of all the
business coming before the assembly. However, certain matters may
require explanation from time to time as they are presented for con-
sideration and decision. As often as necessary a president should
give elucidations.

It should be noted that the Church Order requires that the presi-
dent “state and explain” the business to be transacted. It does not say
that he must constantly advise the assembly. If he feels that advice
on his part is required he may certainly speak his mind, but then
he should first give the gavel to the assistant president so that he
may speak on the matter at hand in the capacity of an ordinary dele-
gate. The president should also avoid the danger of using his position
to swing a meeting his way. He should be as objective as possible
in his capacity as president, and he should not forget that it is his
task as president to direct the gathering in its free deliberation of
all its affairs. It is his privilege and duty to guide and direct, not his
right to pull and compel. Though he stands at the controls of the
meeting, he may not be partial and wilful in the handling of these
controls.

Secondly the president must “see to it that everyone observes due
order in speaking.” This provision sums up the main task of presi-
dents of our major assemblies. At Consistory meetings the president
may find it necessary to take part in the discussion again and again.
But at classical and synodical gatherings the task of our presidents
will be largely that of directing the deliberations.

By observance of due order the Church Order refers to an orderly
transaction of business. Delegates, f i., must “stick to the point” in
their discussions. If any one begins to talk about things not related
to the matter up for consideration the president must stoo him and
call his attention to his mistake. If the same delegate should desire
to speak repeatedly on the same matter while others are waiting for
the floor, the president should refuse him the privilege of speaking.
As a rule the same delegate should not speak oftener than twice or
thrice on any one matter. Hard and fast rules in this respect should
not be passed, for under certain circumstances a delegate might have
to speak very often. Neither should we by arbitrary, parliamentary
rules, make it impossible for a brother to give an assembly all the
light that he may have. Nor should we make it impossible for any
delegate to unburden his Christian conscience. An ecclesiastical
assembly is not to be put on par with an ordinary business meeting
of some board. But no delegate to Classis or Synod should abuse his
privileges and hold the floor repeatedly. The presidents must use a
great deal of discretion also on this score.

158

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

It stands to reason that all delegates should use good manners in
addressing the president or the assembly. If any should fail to do so,
the president must call him to order.

When a matter has been considered for some time and no new
light is being shed on the issues involved, and the gathering seems
ready for a conclusion, the president ought to summarize the main
sentiments expressed, and then if necessary suggest that a motion
be offered. Endless discussions, take up a great deal of time; they
promote a nervous tension which is harmful ; and they are often nearly
fruitless. But premature motions and motions prematurely passed
for a vote are also to be condemned. After a calm and careful dis-
cussion on the matter at hand, a motion should be formulated, and
then after a reasonable consideration of the merits and demerits of
the motion, it should be voted upon.

There has 'been a tendency during recent years to multiply rules
and regulations for our classical and synodical gatherings (cf. Acts of
Synod, 1934, pp. 306-312). It is doubtful whether the majority of
delegates to our assemblies will and can bear all these detailed rules
in mind. This is true for our Elders, but also for our Ministers.
Moreover, discussion should be free and not hampered by a large
number of technical rules. We fear the rules approved in 1934 are
too detailed and rigid. It is doubtful whether any Synod can really
observe all these rules. Our Synods should continue to be deliberative
gatherings. Strict enforcement of the rules adopted would keep many
a delegate from speaking his opinion for fear that he would be trans-
gressing some rule and should be called out of order. We should
have a few fundamental rules perchance, over and above what the
Church Order gives us. But let us ever avoid sets of detailed, legalis-
tic, parliamentary rules. Our ecclesiastical gatherings are not politi-
cal gatherings. Even in political gatherings and gatherings akin to
these, rule upon rule and precept upon precept often work their harm
and are grossly abused.

In the third place, Article 25 stipulates that it is the president's
duty “to silence the captious and those that are vehement in speak-
ing; and to properly discipline them if they refuse to listen." Captious
persons are such as are fault-finders and overly critical. The original
Latin term is “acriores,” and designates those who irritate by their
sharp and cutting remarks. In the Dutch we have “knibbelachtigen.”
This term applies to those that are small and petty in their criticism;
real fault-finders.

The use of sarcasm should seldom be used, especially at our
ecclesiastical gatherings. Cutting remarks should likewise be ruled
out. Any unchristian word, attitude, or assumption should be contra-
band at our ecclesiastical meetings.

Those that are too vehement must also be silenced by the president.
The Latin word here is “contentiose,” and the Dutch “heftig.” The
term vehement, therefore, refers to those that are too violent in
their words. Vehemence in speech is usually provoked by anger and
is easily carried too far. Even if a speaker is motivated in his ve-
hemence by righteous indignation he should watch his words. Any-
one who loses control of himself in this respect should be called back
to his normal self by the chair.

Usually a word from the president will be enough. But if a mere
reminder or admonition is not enough, then the president must forbid
him in the name of the meeting to continue. This is what the Church
Order means when it speaks of disciplining those that refuse to listen.
Sometimes the president may find it necessary to call for a motion

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

159

of disapproval on the part of the assembly. In extreme cases the
president should ask the offending brother to leave the meeting in
order that the assembly may decide in his absence what is to be done
m his case. The first Synod (Emden, 1571) already advised that this
latter procedure might be followed in some cases.

If the president himself should offend on any of these points it
would become the duty of the assistant president to call him to order.
And if need be the assembly should be called upon to censure him by
a vote of disapproval.

From all the foregoing it follows that the task of presidents at our
assemblies is far from easy. Not all are equally well qualified for
this important function. Says Bouwman, “A president must be a
man possessing calmness of character, clearness of insight, and de-
termination of will”.* Self-control, the ability to give definite leader-
ship, and the ability of expressing one’s self clearly and fluently may
also be mentioned as desirable qualities for presidents of our major
assemblies. He should be a man of ability and conviction; and who,
because of these qualities, has the confidence of the assembly over
which he is ' to preside.

2. The duration of their office.

The Church Order stipulates: “His office shall cease when the as-
sembly arises.” Which simply means that when the meetings of the
assembly have ended the president’s term as president has also ended.
He is not appointed for a definite period of time, but only for the dura-
tion of the assembly concerned, whether that assembly meet for just
one session or for several sessions, for one day or for several days.

This provision is very natural. The president’s office is not an office
in its ordinary sense, but only a function. Yet this provision has been
included in the Church Order for a good purpose, namely, to make
it very clear that the presidents of our assemblies are not to be con-
sidered superior officers. We have no bishops as Churches with the
hierarchical form of government have. (The Roman Catholic Church
is hierarchical in the extreme. The Methodist and other Churches are
also essentially hierarchical in Church government, although in a
very mild form.) Our Churches are ruled neither by priests nor
bishops, but they govern themselves through duly organized assem-
blies.

In many Presbyterian denominations, as also in the (Dutch) Re-
formed Church of America, the president (called Moderator) of major
gatherings is considered to be chosen for the term of one year. The
Moderator chosen one year is recognized as such until his “successor”
is chosen at the next general assembly. Several authorities, however,
realize that this custom does not agree with Presbyterian Church
government and that it finds no support in the Constitution of said
Churches. It is well that our Church Order definitely rules a concep-
tion as just alluded to out of court.

It is worthy of note that our Reformed fathers were very much
afraid of the evils and dangers of hierarchism. To avoid hierarchical
evils and tendencies, Article 37 even provides that in our Consistories,
if a Church have more than one Minister, these Ministers shall pre-
side in turn. And again, to avoid hierarchical evils and tendencies,
Article 41 provides that the same brother shall not preside at two
successive classical meetings.

But if the directors of our assemblies serve only while these bodies

*Gereformeerd Kerkrecht, II. p. 87.

160

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

are in session, then who takes care of matters that require the atten-
tion of these assemblies while they are not in session ? For urgent
matters every Classis has a Classical Committee, consisting of three
of its office-bearers. So also Synod has a Synodical Committee.
These committees act upon matters which cannot wait until the as-
sembly meets. Their task is limited to matters which require imme-
diate action and yet are not of such a nature that a special session of
the assembly is warranted. These committees must submit a report
of all their activities to the next assembly concerned, for the approval
or disapproval of these bodies. Men who serve on these committees
should have a thorough knowledge and a seasoned judgment. They
should know the Church Order and its underlying principles. Elders
are just as eligible, as far as their office is concerned, for these com-
mittees as Ministers are. Needless to say, members of Classical or
Synodical Committees should carefully avoid the assumption of au-
thority not entrusted to them.

Those who wish to address letters or reports to our assemblies
while they are not in session can write to the Stated Clerks, of whom
we have already spoken. (Cf. comments under Article 34). Our minor
assemblies, i.e., our Consistories, all have regular clerks.

ARTICLE XXXVI.

The Classis has the same jurisdiction over the Consistory as
the Particular Synod has over the Classis and the General Synod
over the Particular.

AUTHORITY OF MAJOR ASSEMBLIES OVER MINOR
ASSEMBLIES

1. Major assemblies have authority over minor assemblies.

Our English redaction of Article 36 speaks of jurisdiction. We be-
lieve the word authority would have been a better term to use. The
word jurisdiction has a distinct legal bias. It is derived from the
Latin “ jurisdiction (jus - law, dico - to say) which in the first place
refers to the administration of justice in civil matters. Now the orig-
inal Latin Church Order did not use the word “jurisdictio,” but “auc-
toritas,” from the word “auctor” which signifies an author, founder,
originator, etc., or an advisor, counselor, promoter, pattern. “Auctori-
tas” as used in the Latin original of the Church Order indicates the
right to act, order, rule, advise, or exhort. Our English word author-
ity indicates the right to act officially. Consequently we would rather
speak of authority than of jurisdiction. Perhaps the simplest and
safest reading would be, “The classis has the same rights over the
Consistory . . .” The word authority is often used in a legalistic, com-
pelling sense whereas the Church Order refers to a moral and spir-
itual authority.

The practical import of this brief consideration is illustrated by
the decision of the Synod of 1926, which ruled that major assemblies
had the right to depose a Consistory inasmuch as Article 36 attributed
jurisdiction to_Classes over Consistories. Now aside from the question
whether or not a Classis has the right to depose a Consistory, Synod
should not have based its decision on the use of the word jurisdiction

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

161

m Article 36, inasmuch as the use of this term is really a mistake,
out of keeping with the fundamental principles of the Church Order.

Is the exercise of ecclesiastical authority as provided for in Article
36 based on Biblical example? Yes. We read in Acts 16 that the
Church in Antioch sent delegates to the Church at Jerusalem to con-
sider with it certain vexing questions regarding the keeping of the
Mosaic ordinances. The Apostles and Elders were gathered to con-
sider this matter. After due deliberation certain decisions were
reached. These decisions were laid upon the Churches as necessary
things (vs. 28). The Churches had to respect the decisions of this
assembly. The authoritative character of this gathering should not
be explained by saying that this meeting was primarily a gathering
of Apostles, men who were infallibly led in their official work by the
Spirit of God. The Elders at Jerusalem took part in the work of this
assembly, and even the whole body of believers seems to have been
involved at least indirectly (cf. vs. 22). And the representatives from
Antioch took an active part in the deliberations and decisions (vs. 12).

This meeting at Jerusalem therefore clearly partakes of the char-
acter of major assemblies. It may be regarded as a forerunner of
what became well-organized and regular later on. True, we do not
read of regularly-instituted major gatherings. But in the first place,
since the Apostles were still alive and active, there was no urgent
need for major assemblies. And furthermore, the Church of Christ
was just beginning to manifest itself in well-organized groups locally.
In other words, time did not yet permit and demand the regular or-
ganization of major assemblies. Even so we do read of other instances
where Churches take united action (Rom. 15:26; II Cor. 8:19).

The exercise of authority on the part of major assemblies over
minor assemblies is also wholly reasonable. For indeed, groups of
Churches have a larger sphere of influence and domain of authority
than just one Church. Each particular Church has a certain authority
received of Christ and vested in its Consistory. Now when a Church,
through its Consistory, sends delegates to a major assembly, that
Church thereby brings a measure of its authority to this assembly, at
the same time submitting itself to the accumulated authority of all the
Churches convened. Indeed, the very fact that a particular Church is
affiliated with other Churches in one denomination implies transfer of
and submission to authority.

All the Churches of a Classis have submitted themselves to the just
guidance and rule of the Classis. And all the Classes have submitted
themselves to the just guidance and rule of the Synods. Let us not
forget that denominational co-operation would be out of the question
if classical and synodical gatherings were not vested with the author-
ity attributed to them in Article 36. Ecclesiastical federation accord-
ing to the Reformed conception simply implies authoritative rights
on the jpart of major assemblies over minor assemblies.

2. The nature of the authority which major assemblies have over
minor assemblies.

The authority which the government exercises over its subjects is
juridical authority. The authority which the Reformed Churches have
attributed to their major assemblies in relation to their minor assem-
blies is not juridical, but moral and spiritual. In Dutch we distinguish
in like manner between “rechterlijk gezag” and “zedelijk, geestelijk
gezag.”

According to Reformed church polity the authority of major as-
semblies is:

162

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

1. Derived, and not original. Consistories receive their authority
directly from Christ the King of His Church. Classes and Synods
receive their authority only by delegation. Consistories therefore ex-
ercise original authority, but major assemblies have no other than
derived authority;

2. Limited, and not general. A Consistory exercises a general author-
ity. It has authority to act on all matters pertaining to its congre-
gation. But a Classis and Synod has authority to act only concerning
matters that could not be finished at minor assemblies, or that pertain
to the Churches in general (Art. 30). The authority of major as-
semblies does not extend beyond the provisions of the Church Order
and the instructions given it by the minor assemblies;

3. Smaller in measure, and not higher in degree. One who is dele-
gated will naturally have less authority than the delegating body.
And essentially there is no ecclesiastical authority other than the
authority vested in the office-bearers of the particular Churches;

4. Ministering, and not compelling. A major assembly cannot force
a minor assembly to accept and execute its decisions. A minor as-
sembly, if it feels that a decision of a major assembly is unBiblical,
should appeal to the next gathering of the assembly, or to the as-
sembly next in order. In the meantime the appealing body should
submit, unless it cannot do so because of great conscientious objec-
tions before God. If the objections are not removed, and if the de-
cision stands, then the brethren concerned should, if at all possible,
submit if need be under continued protest and always with the clear
understanding that the burdened parties have a full right to retain
their own convictions. But if the brethren concerned feel fully per-
suaded that they may not submit, even under conditions as just indi-
cated, then the only other course open to them is withdrawal from
the denomination. Needless to say, this is a very serious and extreme
step, and should only be taken in case the matter is very urgent.

5. Conditional, and not unconditional. The Word of God only is inde-
pendent. Its deliverances and commandments are, from their very
nature, unconditional. But all decisions of ecclesiastical gatherings
are valid only if they agree with the Bible.

These fundamental principles should never be lost out of sight. If
the Church of Christ ever does lose sight of these all-important prin-
ciples, she will suffer for it. And sometimes very severely. Consider
the trials of Dr. J. G. Machen and others by the Presbyterian Church
of the U. S. A. What a loss for that denomination!

It is also well to remember what Dr. Bouwman tells us in his pre-
viously quoted and very valuable work. Says he: “All ecclesiastical
authority, given unto His Church by Christ, resides in the particular
Church. The keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, given to the Apostles
by Christ, and in them to the congregation were, when the Apostles
passed from the scenes of life, exercised by the office-bearers who had
been chosen under their guidance in the particular Churches. This
ecclesiastical authority consists of three things: Authority to admin-
ister the Word and the Sacraments; authority to elect ecclesiastical
office-bearers; and authority to exercise ecclesiastical discipline.
There is no other authority in the ecclesiastical sphere. And this
three-fold authority does not pertain to the Major Assemblies, but
to the office-bearers of the particular Churches.” 1 From the principle
here enunciated it follows that major assemblies have no more au-

1. Bouwman: Oeref. Kerkrecht, 1934, II, 21.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 163

thority than that which the Churches have contributed to them by
mutual agreement.

3. The authority of major assemblies over minor assemblies differen-
tiated from the authority of Consistories over congregations.

There is a distinct difference between the authority of Major as-
semblies over minor assemblies, and the authority of Consistories over
congregations. For this reason Article 36 does not speak of this
authority of Consistories over congregations.

Voetius, Bouwman, and Jansen 1 all enumerate certain differences
between consistorial authority and the authority of our major as-
semblies. There is a difference (1) as to origin. Major assemblies
have no other authority than that which they have derived from the
Consistories. Consistories, however, exercise an authority given unto
them directly by Christ. There is a difference (2) as to necessity.
Major assemblies are necessary for the welfare or well-being of the
Churches. Consistories are necessary for the being, the very existence
of the Churches. There is a difference (3) as to essence. The author-
ity of Classes and Synods is derived and accidental. The particular
Church possesses original and essential authority. (Heat is essential
to fire, but accidental to water heated by fire. — Jansen.) There is a
difference (4) as to duration. The authority of Classes and Synods,
from the nature of the case, would cease if the particular Churches
constituting the denomination would cease. But though Classes and
Synod should cease to function, yet the Churches could continue to
exist. There is furthermore a difference (5) as to purpose. Consisto-
ries have an independent existence and do not exist for the sake of
the major assemblies. But the major assemblies do exist for the sake of
the particular Churches, namely, to minister to their welfare with
good advice and wise guidance.

ARTICLE XXXVII.

In all Churches there shall be a Consistory composed of the
Ministers of the Word and the Elders , who at least in larger
congregations , shall , as a rule , meet once a week. The Minister
of the Word (or the Ministers , if there be more than one , in
turn) shall preside and regulate the proceedings. Wherever
the number of Elders is small , the Deacons may be added to the
Consistory by local regulation; this shall invariably be the rule
where the number is less than three.

CONSISTORIES

Articles 37 to 40 concern our Consistories. Article 29 enumerates
four kinds of ecclesiastical assemblies. Of these four the Consistory
is mentioned first of all, namely, in Article 37. Article 38 regulates
the constitution of Consistories for the first time, i.e., in other words,
the organization of new Churches. Article 39 tells us what is to be
done for localities where there are believers, but where organization
cannot as yet take place. And Article 40 regulates the matter of
diaconal gatherings.

1. Bouwman: Geref. Xerkrecht. 1934, II. 22; Voetius: Pol. EocL, I, 122;
IV, 166, 226 (Cf. Bouwman, II, 22); Jansen, Xorte Verklaring, etc., 1923,
165, 166.

164

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

1. A Consistory in every Church.

Reformed Church polity holds that every Church must have its own
Consistory. There are good reasons for this position. In the first
place note that every Church is a complete unit in itself. Holy Writ,
f.i., speaks concerning the Churches at Antioch, at Corinth, etc., as
local and particular Churches, and acknowledges them to be complete
units of the general Church of Christ (cf. Acts 13:1; 1 Cor. 1:2). We
also find that every Church has its own office-bearers (cf. Acts. 14:23;
Titus 1:5). These office-bearers are charged with the service of the
Word and the Sacraments, with the maintenance of purity in doctrine
and the exercise of discipline (cf. Acts 20:28; I Peter 5:2,3). More-
over, the office-bearers form a body taking united action whenever
necessary (Acts 15:6; 20:17; 21:17,18). Thus also I Tim. 4:14 speaks
of “the presbytery,” definitely referring to a body of Elders it would
seem.

Denominational unity and confederation is certainly Biblical, and
is based upon our essential unity in Christ and under Christ our great
Prophet, only High Priest, and eternal King. And confederation of
Churches certainly supports and promotes the welfare of the particu-
lar Churches. But it should not be forgotten that even without this
God-ordained confederacy a particular Church has all that is essential
to a Church (offices, right and duty to preach the Word, administra-
tion of the Sacraments, exercise of discipline).

Calvin held that ultimately the government of the Church was
vested in the congregation.1 To the congregation of believers it is
said: “But as ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,
a people for God’s own possession, that ye may show forth the excel-
lencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous
light” (I Peter 2:9). This passage marks the believers as prophets,
priests, and kings. Related to this principle stands the fact that in
our Churches the congregation of believers always takes part in the
appointment of men to office and in the exercise of discipline. The
Consistories must always, according to the general rules of the Church
Order, acknowledge and consult the congregation. But, as Dr. Bouw-
man points out*2 the members of the visible manifestation of the
body of Christ, i.e., the members of each particular Church, exercise
their rights and duties as an organism organically, through the offices.
When a Church is to be organized the believers appoint certain
brethren to office, under guidance of neighboring Churches if possible.
However, as soon as the offices have been instituted, these offices
begin to govern and guide the affairs of the Church. But this original
authority, common to all believers, again begins to function directly
and without the guidance and authority of these office-bearers, in case
these office-bearers become unfaithful to their charge and refuse to
amend their neglect and errors. Then, again with the assistance of
neighboring Churches if possible, the believers as such are called
upon to exercise their prerogatives under Christ their absolute
Sovereign.

As Voetius states, the Consistory is the organ through which the
Church functions, even as the eye is the organ through which the
body sees.3

1. cf. Calvin, Institutes, IV, 1.

2. Bouwman, G-ereformeerde Xerkrecht, 1934, II, 102.

3. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. 4:893, quoted by Bouwman, Geref. Xerkrecht, 1934,

lit lU6.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

165

2. Members of the Consistory.

Article 37 clearly specifies that Consistories shall be composed of
Ministers and Elders. This is as might be expected. In I Tim. 4:14,
for instance, the term presbytery refers to a body of Elders. In the
following chapter (I Tim. 5:17) these officers are spoken of in a two-
fold sense. They are referred to as teaching Elders and ruling Elders.
It should also be noted that the term Consistory, as used in the
Church Order, uniformly signifies the body of Ministers and Elders.
This is especially clear from Articles 4, 5, 10, etc., in which articles
the Consistory is distinguished from the body of Deacons.

The first regular Synod of the Reformed Churches of Holland,
Emden 1571, declared that in each Church there should be “gatherings
or Consistories of Ministers of the Word, Elders, and Deacons” (Em-
den 1571, Art. 6). There seems to have been some difference of
opinion regarding this 6th article of Emden. The question seemingly
arose whether the Synod had meant that all these three offices must
meet in one gathering, or whether the Deacons might, or perhaps
should, constitute a separate gathering. In most of the Churches the
Elders and Deacons met separately.* In some Churches the Deacons
were definitely not admitted to the Consistory. In still other Churches
the Deacons refused to meet with the Consistory. So three years later
the Synod of Dort, 1574, being questioned in regard to this matter,
declared: “In explanation of Article 6 of Emden, providing that in
every Church there shall be gatherings of Ministers of the Word,
Elders, and Deacons the brethren understand: That the Ministers and
Elders shall meet by themselves, and the Deacons by themselves, so
that each may transact their own affairs. But in places where there
are few Elders, the Deacons shall be permitted to be a part of the
Consistory, and having been called into the Consistory, they shall be
obliged to come” (Art. 4, Dort, 1574).

This explanatory decision of 1574 has been maintained ever since
and finds its reflection in Article 37 of our Church Order and in other
articles as well. But our mother Churches in the Netherlands decided
in 1905 that Deacons must be reckoned with the Consistory if the
number of Elders is less than three. This slight revision, a measure
of wisdom and safety, was also incorporated in our redaction of the
Church Order in 1914.

Our Church Order therefore clearly stipulates that regularly the
Ministers and Elders constitute the Consistory, but that in small
Churches the Deacons may be added to the Consistory, and that these
must be added in case there are less than three Elders.

Now, in Article 30 of the Confession our Churches declare that:
“. . . there must be Ministers or pastors to preach the Word of God
and to administer the Sacraments; also Elders and Deacons who, to-
gether with the pastors, form the council of the Church. . .” Some
have concluded that there is a conflict between our Confession and
our Church Order on this score. But let it be noted that in Article 30
of the Confession we declare by whom the Churches ought to be gov-
erned, and that in the Church Order we stipulate how the work of
the office-bearers is to be executed. Or again: In the Confession we
have the declaration of a fundamental principle. In the Church Order
the statement regarding a method of work. The Confession, as
might be expected, commits itself regarding a fundamental principle,
and the Church Order, without denying this fundamental principle.

• Cf. Bouwman, Oeref. Xerkrocht, 1934, II. 113, 114.

166

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

provides for a limited measure of division of labor in keeping with
the peculiar duties of the offices.

Inasmuch as this is a point of importance, and inasmuch as there
has been a measure of confusion and misunderstanding in our circles
regarding these matters, it may be well for us to state the whole
situation in a summary way. First of all then, the three offices of
the N. T. Church are derived from Christ’s threefold office and
correspond to these. The threefold office of Christ was vested in the
Apostles temporarily. In due time Ministers, Elders, and Deacons
continued the work of the Apostles, that is to say, the abiding ele-
ments of their office. The Ministers of the Gospel (or teaching Elders)
represent Christ as Prophet of truth; the Elders (or ruling Elders)
represent Christ as King of righteousness; and the Deacons represent
Christ as Priest of mercy. Each office has its distinct task, though
the offices are more or less inter-related and they have their unity in
Christ.

Whenever necessary these three types of office-bearers may work
together in governing the Churches and in caring for the poor. Elders
then act as assistant Deacons and Deacons as assistant Elders. Thus
it must be done in very small congregations, numbering less than
three Elders.

This special arrangement of full cooperation of all the offices is
altogether permissible in view of the essential unity of the office in
Christ. Ordinarily, however, for reasons of expediency and in keep-
ing with their own special work, the Ministers and Elders meet to
govern the Church as its Consistory, and the Deacons meet as its
Diaconate for the work of mercy. However, in matters of appoint-
ment to office (Articles 4, 5, 22) or release from office (Article 10)
and the exercise of supervision over each other as office-bearers (Art.
81), all three offices must cooperate and work as one body, even in
the largest Churches.

The division of labor provisions of the Church Order, i.e., the pro-
vision that the Elders hold their separate meetings and the Deacons
theirs, this provision is therefore both restricted and conditional.

From the foregoing it will be clear that when the Deacons are part
of the Consistory they should be considered to be full-fledged Con-
sistory members. They have a voice and vote in all matters which
pertain to the government of the Church, even as the Elders under
these circumstances have a voice and vote in all matters regarding
the Church’s work of mercy. To deny the Deacons a right to vote in
cases of discipline, for instance, would be contrary to the Church
Order and the duties which have been imposed on them by local ar-
rangement. However, when matters pertaining to the government of
the Church are being considered the Deacons should certainly bear in
mind that governmental matters belong first of all to the domain of
the Elders. Thus it might happen regarding a disciplinary matter
that a Consistory consisting of four Elders and four Deacons would
vote to bar a certain member from the Sacraments with a vote of
five to three, four Deacons and one Elder favoring the step, but all
the Elders except one being against it. A situation like this certainly
would be very abnormal, though technically in order. In cases akin
to the hypothetical illustration the Consistory would do best to post-
pone action until a greater measure of agreement could be reached,
or until at least the majority of the Elders feel that the step men-
tioned is necessary. So also the Elders should be very slow to outvote
the Deacons in diaconal affairs. The Deacons should also give first
opportunity to the Elders to speak on governmental questions and

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

167

the Elders should, as a matter of common sense and courtesy, allow
the Deacons to voice their opinions before committing themselves re-
garding any matter which concerns the administration of Christian
mercy.

In this connection we would refer to a report drafted by a com-
mittee which reported to the Synod of 1938, on the position of our
Deacons in the Consistory. (Cf. Agenda, 1938, II, pp. 91-99.) We
also quote the decision of Synod in regard to this question:

“In view of the fact that the basic problem in regard to the status
of Deacons in the Consistory hinges on the interpretation of the
phrase, ‘added to the Consistory’ in Art. 37 of the Church Order, Synod
declares that:

1. The phrase, ‘added to the Consistory,’ can mean only that the
Deacons become members of the Consistory, and as such they are
warranted in performing presbyterial functions including the right
to vote in matters of Church government.

2. This concession by our Church Order, namely, that Deacons may
function as Elders, is made to avoid the unReformed practice of oli-
garchic rule which would be the only alternative.

3. It ought, however, to be added that such deacons, in matters of
Church government, should naturally give due consideration to the
judgment of the elders. Adopted.” (Cf. Acts of Synod, 1938, Art. 96,

p. 81.)

3. When separate meetings for Elders and Deacons are held, how
should the work be divided?

Churches which maintain separate meetings for Elders and Deacons
have, as is to be understood, three types of gatherings. First of all
there will be regular Consistory meetings consisting of Ministers and
Elders. Then, they will also have regular Deacons’ meetings. And
in the third place, according to the requirement of the Church Order
for all Churches, there will be meetings of all office-bearers together
— Ministers, Elders, and Deacons.

In the Netherlands our brethren in the faith often speak of the
“breede kerkeraad,” which term indicates the general meeting of all
the office-bearers. The “smalle kerkeraad” indicates the gathering of
Ministers and Elders. And the “diaconale vergadering” is the term
used to designate the gathering of the Deacons. With us these various
gatherings are sometimes designated as Council Meetings, Consistory
Meetings, and Deacons’ Meetings. Other possible designations would
be: the General Consistory, the Restricted Consistory, and the Diacon-
ate. The term “Deaconate,” in spite of the fact that it is less cumber-
some and that many in our circles use it regularly, is not good Eng-
lish. Diaconate is. Deaconry would also be good English.

Jansen enumerates rather fully the matters which are usually acted
upon at the meetings of General Consistories in the Netherlands.*

They are as follows:

1. All matters pertaining to the election of office-bearers: Nominations:
final decision whether or not one chosen shall be called: consideration of
objections registered; releasing one from his call to office, etc. (Cf. Ch.
O., Art. 4, 5. 22, 24, etc.)

2. The issuing and receiving of certificates of Ministers arriving or de-
parting. (Ch. O. Art. 5 and 10.)

3. Provisional consideration of and decision regarding emeritation. (Ch.
O., Art. 13.)

4. Mutual Censure. (Ch. O., Art. 81.)

* Jansen, Xorte Verklaring, etc., 1923, pp. 170, 171.

168

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

5. Church Visitation. (Ch. O., Art. 44.)

6. Administration of finances (Ch. O., Art. 11); appointing and instruct-
ing Building and Grounds Committees; regulating the various collections
and distribution of funds collected; determining the amount of salaries to
be paid.

7. The general administration of benevolence matters; Regulating the
matter of poor fund collections; extension of advice to the Deacons; ap-
proval of diaconal activities regarding help extended, etc. (Ch. O., Art.
26, 26.)

8. General business administration of the material interests of the
Church, including the erection of buildings for congregational purposes,
for the poor, etc.

9. Consideration of general correspondence. (Correspondence regarding
more spiritual matters concerns the Restricted Consistory, and that re-
garding the care for the poor concerns the Diaconate.)

The same author attributes the following activities to the Restricted
Consistory meetings:

1. Regulating the services of the Word and catechism instruction.

2. The exercise of discipline.

3. The matter of home-visitation work.

4. Admission to the sacraments.

5. Consideration of all correspondence which concerns the Elders par-
ticularly.

Bouwman rightly adds to these: Delegation of representatives to
major assemblies.

Regarding the activities which Jansen assigns to the General Con-
sistories, Bouwman is not nearly as elaborate but both authorities are
in substantial agreement.1

How large should Consistories be before division of labor can be
introduced with profit? No one should attempt to lay down an abso-
lute rule regarding this matter. Separate meetings should not be in-
troduced too early, but neither should they be postponed unduly. There
are reasons to believe that a number of our Churches which have
failed to do so until now, could do so with profit. Division of labor,
where it is possible, makes for specialization and concentration. Dr.
F. L. Rutgers suggests that Consistories of six Elders and more
should consider the desirability of introducing separate gatherings,2

4. How often should Consistories meet, and who should act
as president?

Originally the Consistories would meet once a week. This was in
accord with the stipulations made in the first Synod (Emden, 1571).
However, it soon became apparent that especially in smaller Churches
it was not necessary that Consistories should meet every week. The
Netherland Churches, in their redaction of 1905, made this provision
less binding by providing that Consistories in “larger Churches”
should “as a rule” meet once a week. We followed this example in
1914. In practice Consistories meet monthly or bi-weekly, depending
upon the size of the Church and the amount of work constantly re-
quiring attention.

In those of our Churches which maintain division of labor for their
office-bearers it will doubtlessly be found expedient in most cases to
have the General Consistory meet once a month and the Restricted
Consistory likewise. The Deacons should meet bi-weekly or monthly,
or as often as their work may demand.

Who calls the Consistory meetings together? The next president.
In Churches with only one Minister it will always be the same brother,

1. Bouwman, G-ereformeerd Xerkrecht, II, 1934, pp. 117, 118.

2. Rutgers, Xerkelijke Adviezen I, 1921, p. 282.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

169

but in Churches with more than one Minister these serve in turn.
Art. 37 provides that the Ministers preside in turn in order to counter-
act the danger of inequality and hierarchism in those Churches which
have more than one Minister. The presidency at Consistory meetings
the Church Order attributes to the Ministers and not to the Elders.
This is done not because the office of Elders is inferior, but because
as a rule the Ministers are better qualified by reason of their special
training and more extended experience.

The presidents are to regulate the proceedings. The gatherings
consider and act. The president merely presides and regulates as a
brother amongst brethren.

The next president also has the right to call a special meeting of
the Consistory. But no special meeting can take valid action, as
stands to reason, unless all the members have been properly notified.

How many members must be present in order to render consistorial
action valid? At least a majority. If a majority is not present it is
better to postpone the meeting. If again a majority fails to come,
though all have been notified, and the meeting has not been called
at an hour or place at which the majority could not possibly come,
(say 9 a. m., when nearly all must be at work) then the meeting
should proceed, and can do so validly.

5. The Consistory meetings and the congregation.

First of all, Consistory meetings are, as is proper, private. Some
have contended that the members of the Church should be admitted.
An appeal has been made to the case of Acts 15. But it should be
remembered that the gathering of Acts 15 partakes far more of the
nature of a major gathering than of a Consistory meeting. Further-
more the matter up for consideration at this meeting was not of local
interest but very definitely of general interest, i.e., the question of
circumcision for converts from paganism.

It certainly is to the best interest of the Churches that Consistory
meetings are private. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten
that every member has a full right to present himself at the Con-
sistory meetings to give or to gain information, or to present a re-
quest, grievance, appeal, or protest.

Furthermore our Consistories should do their utmost to keep the
congregation well informed as to those activities which it is entitled
to know. Consistories should avoid giving the impression that they
are independent bodies, ruling and acting with superior power. Since
Consistories are the God ordained organs of the Church there should
be a close contact between Consistory and congregation.

What is the nature of congregational meetings? Our Church Order
knows of only three types of ecclesiastical gatherings, namely, Con-
sistories, Classes, and Synods. Our so-called congregational meetings
are really Consistory meetings to which all male members in full and
regular standing have been invited, in order that certain definite
matters may be considered under the direction of the Consistories.
They are really deliberative gatherings, called together by the Con-
sistory, at which the Consistory seeks to gain the opinion of the con-
gregation. At these meetings office-bearers are also designated. But
all action taken at these meetings becomes valid only after the Con-
sistory as such has given its decision or approval. Usually this ap-
proval is assumed. That is to say, if no objections are raised against
the opinions voiced at the congregational meetings, the Consistory
acts forthwith in accord with the expression of opinion registered on
the part of the congregation.

170

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

When we say that consistorial action is needed to make decisions
made at congregational meetings valid we do not mean to say that
Consistories may act arbitrarily. Not in the least. Consistories are
bound to abide by certain expressions of opinion made at these con-
gregational gatherings, unless they are prevented by the Word of God
or circumstances. But this is the point, the Consistories are the re-
sponsible agencies of God to rule the Churches aright. If the office-
bearers therefore clearly see that a congregation has made a mistake
in its expression of opinion then they must refrain from acting in
harmony with such an opinion expressed, and if need be, consult the
Church anew, explaining the difficulties.

Should all Consistory meetings be announced to the Church? Yes,
all regular meetings of office-bearers, whether of the General Consis-
tory, the Restricted Consistory, or of the Diaconate, should be an-
nounced, in order that those who wish to appear before the gathering
may know when the meeting is to be held. Special meetings called
for the consideration of special or unfinished business as a rule do not
need to be announced.

ARTICLE XXXVIII.

In places where the Consistory is to be constituted for the
first time or anew, this shall not take place except with the
advice of the Classis.

NEW CHURCHES AND ADVICE OF CLASSIS

1. Significance of the term used to indicate the organization
of new Churches.

This article clearly refers to the matter of Church organization.
Yet the expression, “organization of new Churches,” does not occur.
How is this to be explained? To the institute or organized Churches
the administration of Word and Sacraments has been entrusted. This
significant task has not been committed by God to unorganized groups
of believers. Nor has it been left to the initiative of individual be-
lievers. Not as if the believers have no rights and duties regarding
the Gospel of salvation. We should all be witnesses and spokesmen of
God. We should all permit the light of God, graciously given unto us,
to shine. But the administration of the Word in its official sense and
the administration of the Sacraments pertain only to the organized
and authorized Church of God. This authorized Church has the charge
to go with divine authority proclaiming the Word and Will of God,
and to signify and to seal the same by means of the Sacraments. And
the Church must discharge itself of this beautiful and important task
through the duly appointed office-bearers. Likewise, the Churches
govern themselves, under Christ, through the offices, and engage in
the work of Christian mercy through the offices.

Consequently the organized Church functions through the offices and
does not even exist without the offices. Hence it follows that only
when the offices have been instituted can it be said that the Church
of Christ has acquired a definite and authoritative form. Wherever
the offices have been instituted there the Church has been organized.

The organization of Churches is therefore indicated in Article 38

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

171

accoixling to its essential and indispensable characteristic. And the
terminology used in Article 38 stresses this important and essential
character of the offices for the organized Church of Christ on earth.

2. Why the phrasei, “for the first time or anew”?

At the time when this article was originally drafted the Churches
of Holland were still suffering by reason of the Spanish persecution.
Sometimes Churches were badly shattered, inasmuch as their members
had to flee for their lives. Many sought temporary refuge in England
and Germany. Consequently many Churches were nearly or entirely
disorganized. Now as the persecutor was driven from certain locali-
ties before the armies of William of Orange or his associates, the
refugees of these sections would return to their homes. As stands to
reason, these returned refugees soon sought to restore their broken
Churches. But now it was agreed that these former Churches should
not be reorganized unless Classis had first declared itself in favor of
this move. Without the advice of Classis the offices should not be re-
instituted.

Why this provision? Seemingly the Churches deemed it unwise and
harmful to act prematurely in the matter of reorganizing a Church.
Organizing a Church is always an important step. For a Church is
far more than an ordinary man-made society. Consequently, the num-
bers of those desiring a Church should be sufficient, and there must
be a reasonable assurance that the proposed Church will continue to
exist.

But the provision also covers localities which had never yet had a
Church. This element of the phrase under consideration was added in
Holland in 1905, and by us in 1914. Perhaps it should be assumed that
it was always understood that if the organization of a Church was
desired in a locality which had never yet had one of our Churches,
then the same rule would hold which had been agreed upon for the
reestablishment of a Church. For surely if no Church ought to be re-
established without the advice of all the neighboring Churches,
through Classis, then it stands to reason that no new Church ought
to be established by a group of believers without such approval and
advice.

But in 1914 this stipulation has been included in our Church Order
as we have just noted. Because of entirely changed circumstances a
Church once disbanded, perhaps by reason of group removals to other
sections, is seldom reorganized. On the other hand. Churches are or-
ganized repeatedly in new localities. Therefore the renderings of 1905
and 1914 are entirely to the point.

3. Significance of the advice of Classis.

Essentially any group of believers has a right to organize itself
into a Church. For instance, if a group of believers, by extraordinary
circumstances, should find itself isolated from the rest of the world,
say on a distant island, would not this group have the God-given
right to organize itself into a Church through the election of office-
bearers, etc.? Would anyone care to maintain that the resultant
Church was really non-existent simply because no major ecclesiastical
assembly had sponsored, effected, or advised its organization? Only
he who belongs to a strict hierarchical Church organization would
care to champion the suggested contention. By this admission we
grant that believers have an essential right to organize themselves
into a Church if they so desire.

The Classical decisions regarding the organization of particular

172

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Churches are therefore not necessary for the very existence of our
Churches. Why then does the Church Order prescribe classical ad-
vice? As a matter of good policy; as a matter of common consent
and wisdom, and not as a matter of superior authority without which
no Church can be organized. The advice of Classis for the institution
of the offices in a new locality, so it has been expressed by more than
one authority in Reformed Church government in Holland, is neces-
sary, not for the “being” of the Church, but for its “well-being.”

The advice referred to in the present phrase has the significance cf
judgment, counsel, or help. If Classis decides against the organiza-
tion in question, then the matter must wait. The petitioning group
cannot proceed without, i.eL, against, the advice of Classis. If they
should proceed, they would simply not be recognized as one of our
Churches but as an independent and perhaps schismatic Church.

It may be said in this connection that Article 38 does not mean to
imply that our Classes should sit and wait until petitioners come to
ask the advice and assistance of Classis for organization. Every
Classis should be active and eager to organize new Churches wherever
groups of believers belonging to our Churches, or desiring to join us,
are found to be in need of a Church of their own.

A Classis can never decide to organize a Church without a request
to do so from the brothers and sisters concerned. Reformed church
polity seeks to do full justice to the rights of every believer under
Christ. But a Classis should encourage the individual believers in a
certain locality to take the necessary steps for church organization.
Church extension and home mission work is very necessary and of
great blessing to many.

If a Church cannot be regularly and validly organized without the
advice of Classis, then it follows that no Church ought to be disbanded
without the advice of Classis. If ever a Church dwindles away untij
but a few members are left so that the Church cannot well continue
to exist, then this remnant should become a branch of a neighboring
Christian Reformed Church. And the Consistory of this neighboring
Church should govern the affairs of this group as well as it may. In
case all members leave the community, the property which the Church
concerned may have attained should fall to Classis for disposal.
Minute books etc., should be turned over to Classis also.

4. Sundry matters.

How many members are required for the organization of a new
Church? Our Church Order does not stipulate this. In Holland the
mission deputies have a rule that no new Church shall be organized
in Java unless there are at least twelve brethren which desire the
Church. Jansen feels that a new Church should begin with at least
20 or 25 families. But neither with us, nor in the Netherlands, have
the Churches ever set a definite figure. And wisely so. Circumstances
alter cases. When prospects for growth and continuance are favor-
able a very small number of families and individuals are warranted
to organize themselves into a separate Church. Some of our biggest
and most flourishing Churches began with ten families or less. But
let every Classis judge soberly and with caution before it advises a
petitioning group to organize.

What is the minimum number of Consistory-members for small
Churches? It is generally judged that three should be the minimum;
for example, two Elders and one Deacon; or one Minister, one Elder,
and one Deacon.

What is the mode of procedure which should be followed in the

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

173

organization of a new Church ? All professing Christians of Reformed
persuasion who desire a Christian Reformed Church in a new locality
and intend to join this proposed new Church, sign a petition addressed
to Classis requesting the approval and assistance of Classis. If the
Classis, upon due consideration, acts favorably upon the request, it
appoints a neighboring Consistory to help the brethren and sisters in
the organization. Classis should consider whether the interested group
is large enough to be organized, whether there is a sufficient number
of brethren able to serve in the Consistory, and kindred questions.

The Consistory appointed by Classis arranges for a service of wor-
ship, after which the committee of the Consistory appointed requests
those who desire to join the new Church to present their certificates
of membership. All acceptable certificates are acknowledged as such
by the meeting, upon recommendation of the committee of the Con-
sistory in charge of the organization. All confessing male members
are given the right to vote. Those that have never yet made confes-
sion of faith may submit themselves for examination and may be
received instantly if the results of the examination be satisfactory,
and if their testimonials, in as far as these are available, are satis-
factory. Then the number of Elders and Deacons to be chosen is de-
termined. Balloting follows. Those chosen are instantly installed. If
possible, the matter of legal incorporation should be attended to at
this meeting also.

Sometimes Classes merely appoint committees which are charged
to effect the organization in name of Classis. It is better to do
through Consistories whatever can conveniently be done through
these governing bodies than through committees. Furthermore, it is
well to note that the task of a Consistory designated by a Classis to
help in the organization of a Church is merely to act as an authorized
advisor and guide. The group organizes itself into a Church.

What do we understand by combined Churches? Sometimes two or
more neighboring Churches find that they are too small and too weak
to support a Minister. If then such neighboring Churches make an
agreement providing that they are to call a Minister together, these
Churches so co-operating are often termed combined Churches. They
remain independent one of another, but at times the Churches may
meet as one Congregation for the consideration of their mutual affairs.
And sometimes two or more Consistories of combined Churches may
meet as one Consistory for the same purpose. Whenever Churches
thus combine their strength and efforts they should be careful to draw
up a good set of rules by which all parties concerned will be guided.
If this should be neglected disharmony and friction easily result.

ARTICLE XXXIX.

Places where as yet no Consistory can he constituted shall
be placed under the care of a neighboring Consistory.

PLACES WITHOUT ORGANIZED CHURCHES

This article, as nearly all the rulings and agreements of our Church
Order, dates back to the 16th century, the time of the great Reforma-
tion. The question constantly confronting the Churches already or-
ganized in those days was this: What should we do for those localities

174

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

which have no Reformed Churches as yet? Calvin had urged not to
institute the administration of Word and Sacraments without the in-
stitution of the offices. He was persuaded that in order to maintain
the purity of the preaching of the Word and the administration of
the Sacraments, proper supervision and control was necessary. For
this reason the institution of the offices or the organization of
Churches should not be neglected. Believers having been converted
from the errors of Rome and having broken with Rome certainly
might gather for mutual edification, but they should not initiate the
administration of Word and Sacraments unless they had first insti-
tuted the offices.

1. How did the Churches formerly proceed regarding localities with-
out organized Churches?

The very first Synod of the Reformed Churches of Holland which
met in Ernden, Germany, in 1571, already considered the need of lo-
calities without organized Churches. In the 42nd article of its deci-
sions this Synod stipulated that Ministers and Elders of Classes “bear-
ing the cross,” i.e., being persecuted, should diligently ascertain
whether or not there were any in their near-by cities or villages who
were favorably inclined toward the Reformation, and urge such to do
their duty. To this end the Minister and Elders of these Classes
should attempt to organize Churches, or at least the beginnings of
Churches. In order to carry on this work the Classes were to divide
the various cities and villages amongst themselves so that no localities
might be neglected. And the dispersed Churches, Churches consisting
of believers who had fled to distant parts for their safety, should also
be active in their new localities it was urged. Dispersed believers
should further the work of the Consistories active in the gathering
of Churches by cautiously supplying the Church officers with names
of persons who had in the past manifested their interest in the true
religion in their home community from which they had been driven,
or in the place to which they had fled.

Again we read in the Acts of Synod, 1578, Art. 11, that to localities
in which a Church should be gathered and organized a Minister should
be sent who should use some of the most God-fearing men of such
localities to help him in the government of the Church and the care
of the poor; further, he should urge his listeners to confess their
faith and come to Holy Communion. And when the Congregation had
increased somewhat. Elders and Deacons should be selected according
to the accepted Order out of those who had come to communion. This
method of procedure was confirmed in 1581. In response to the 10th
question considered by this Synod it was decided that a Minister sent
out to gather Churches should, beginning the work of organization
provisionally, appoint some of the most God-fearing brethren as
Elders and Deacons by whose help he should administer the Lord’s
Supper.

By 1580 the work of reformation and Church organization had
progressed greatly. The Synod of that year decided that in localities
^hich had no Consistories as yet the Classis should do that which the
Church Order assigned under normal circumstances to the Consisto-
ries. Neighboring Churches, through their classical organization,
were therefore to minister to the spiritual needs of those living in
communities not yet having a Church. They were to do this particu-
larly, we may assume, by sending a Minister who could sponsor the
organization of Churches, even as former Synods had urged and de-
cided.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

175

The great Synod of Dort, 1618-19, confirmed this decision of 1586
and it became the 39th article of the Church Order. And thus the
article remained until it was slightly altered in 1905 in the Nether-
lands and by us in 1914. Our redaction of 1914 is identical to that of
the Netherlands of 1905, except that the Holland article retained the
words “door de Classe.” Their 39th article therefore reads: “Locali-
ties, where as yet no Consistory can be constituted shall by Chassis
be placed under the care of a neighboring Consistory.” In our redac-
tion the fact that Classis places localities in need of a Church under
the care of a Consistory is understood, though not specifically men-
tioned.

It is better for a Classis to assign work of this type to a Consistory
than to a committee. Whatever can be done through the regular as-
semblies (Consistories, Classes, Synods), in the interest of good order
and safety, should not be assigned to boards and committees. Our
method of appointing a committee when a Consistory could be ap-
pointed just as well tends to place too much power in the hands of
individuals, while the regular offices are neglected. It also tends to
sponsor what has been termed “dominocracy” (rule by Ministers, to
the exclusion of Elders) inasmuch as committees are as a rule largely
composed of Ministers.

The revision of 1905 and 1914, it may be noted, are in full harmony
with what the earliest Synods decided on this score. It is also true
that Ministers, Elders, and Deacons are always such of particular
Churches, never in the abstract or of the Churches in general. And
in harmony with this the administration of Word and Sacraments are
prerogatives of the particular Churches and not of the major assem-
blies. These principles of Reformed church polity find expression in
several articles of our Church Order.

2. What is the significance of Article 39?

Article 39 stipulates that localities not having a Church shall be
placed under the care of a neighboring Consistory. By whom? As
has been noted, by the Classis. Classis regulates this all-important
work. This is as it should be. Without proper organization certain
fields may be neglected, and others might be worked by more than
one Consistory. But by cooperative action through Classis groups of
neighboring Churches divide the various fields amongst themselves.
At times it may also be expedient for all the Churches of a Classis
to sponsor home mission or Church extension work in unison. Of
course, we should not forget in this connection that Classical Mis-
sionaries, as well as all other Ministers, must be called according to
the principle embodied in the Church Order, particularly in Articles
4 and 5. The calling Church in such cases acts as the authorized
agent of all the Churches concerned, under certain definite stipulations.

It may be noted in this connection that the Home Mission Order,
accepted by our Synod of 1936, which makes Home Missions and
Church Extension work synodical, also provides that missionaries
shall be called, charged by and officially connected with a particular
Church. , _

It should not be inferred from this article that Classes may begin
the work of Church organization or evangelization within the terri-
torial bounds of one of our Churches without the approval of the
Church concerned. Major assemblies may never infringe upon the
rights of the particular Churches.

What is included under the care which a neighboring Consistory is
to exercise over localities referred to in Article 39? It includes the

176

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

fullest spiritual care which circumstances permit a Consistory to give.
If possible, gatherings should be sponsored at which the Word is
preached and the Sacraments administered to those who are entitled
to this privilege. As a rule believers who live under the care of a
neighboring Church will become members of that Church, and the
Consistory will keep a separate record of these members. It may be
necessary that the Consistory institute “reading services,” i.e., that
the Consistory appoint one of its Elders or members, or one of the
group concerned, to read a sermon at stated hours on the Lord’s Day.
Catechism and Sunday School classes may have to be organized and
suitable teachers appointed. Home Visitation work should be con-
ducted periodically and faithfully. For those that are not in any way
connected with our Churches and not connected with another orthodox
Church in the community, special canvasses should be conducted,
especially if the field is not under the care of a regular Home Mis-
sionary. As soon as the proper time has come the Consistory should
urge all the believers concerned to petition Classis to aid them in
organizing themselves into a Church.

Very often we sit and wait until our help is requested by a district
without one of our Churches. This, however, is not as it should be.
Our Classes particularly should constantly be on the look-out for new
openings and for needy fields.

The matter of evangelization is certainly very urgent. Thousands
upon thousand's have wandered away from the truth of God through
shallow preaching and the preaching of man’s conceptions. Modernism
is slaying its thousands annually. Worldly-mindedness, godless in-
struction, Sabbath desecration, and other forces are fast increasing
the de-Christianized masses. In view of this there are fields a plenty
for our Churches. Let us appreciate the measure of loyalty and ac-
tivity which is ours, but let us also press on to greater accomplish-
ments. There is a crying need for true, Biblical, Reformed preaching
and teaching. Let all our Churches be active and eager to work.

ARTICLE XL.

The Deacons shall meet, wherever necessary, every
week to transact the business pertaining to their office, calling
upon the Name of God; whereunto the Ministers shall take good
heed and, if necessary, they shall be present.

MEETINGS OF THE DEACONS

The three previous articles concern our Consistories. Article 37
regulates matters directly consistorial. Article 38 concerns the for-
mation of new Consistories. And Article 39 makes provision for lo-
calities which as yet have no Consistories. And now Article 40, as a
matter closely related to the foregoing, provides for diaconal meet-
ings.

Diaconal meetings are not mentioned in Article 29, which article
stipulates which four ecclesiastical gatherings shall be maintained.
The Synod of Emden, 1571, had ruled that the Deacons were Con-
sistory members. But the Synod of Dort, 1574, declared that the
Deacons should meet weekly in order to consider the affairs of their
office fully. The Synod of 1586 added to the stipulation of 1574 that

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

177

at these meetings they should call “upon the Name of God”, and the
Ministers should exercise due supervision over these meetings, and if
necessary be present at these gatherings. The Synod of 1905, Hol-
land, as well as our Synod of 1914 revised the article so that the
Deacons must meet weekly “wherever necessary.” Heretofore the
article prescribed weekly meetings without exception.

1. In which Churches and how often Diaconal meetings should
be held.

Should the Deacons hold separate meetings even in Churches in
which the Deacons constantly meet with the Consistory? No. In
Churches which have not yet introduced separate meetings for the
Elders and for the Deacons the latter need not hold special meetings
for Deacons alone. In these Churches, which are not operating ac-
cording to the division of labor plan of the Church Order, see espe-
cially Art. 37, the work of mercy is regularly acted upon at the gen-
eral Consistory meetings. Article 40 is intended for the larger
Churches which have their general Consistory meetings and their Re-
stricted Consistory meetings and consequently also need their Dia-
conal meetings.

The article stipulates that the Deacons should hold meetings.
They should not merely confer informally as occasion may demand,
say after the service on Sunday, but at regular hours, previously de-
termined and announced to the Church. And at least in our larger
Churches the Deacons should conduct their affairs according to an
adopted order. Rules for Diaconal meetings should stipulate matters
as follow: Time and place of meeting; Order of business; Election
and duties of president, secretary, etc.; Duties and authority of com-
mittees; How funds are to be collected, etc. Needless to say a set of
rules as here suggested should be approved by the General Consistory.

How ofteri should the Deacons meet? As noted above, the old
Orders specified “every week”. Our present reading, however, says
that the Deacons shall meet every week “whenever necessary.” In
our larger Churches Deacons may certainly find it necessary to meet
every week regularly. In smaller Churches bi-weekly or monthly
meetings may be sufficient. But haphazardness should not prevail.
Meetings should be held at set times. If the practical work of the
Deacon’s office does not seem to require a Deacons’ meeting at any
time, then let the brethren devote some time to the consideration of
the spiritual side of the work. Special meetings should be called when
emergencies arise. ,

2. Matters to be acted upon at these meetings.

The article clearly states that the Deacons are to meet in order
“to transact the business pertaining to their office.” They should not
discuss doctrinal questions pertaining to all the offices, or to consider
Church governmental matters. They should also be very careful not
to assume an attitude of parity with the Consistory, and far less
should the Deacons at their meetings plan or plot against the Con-
sistory. Things belonging to the domain of the General Consistory
should not be discussed and considered at the meetings of the Elders
(Restricted Consistory), nor at the meetings of the Deacons (Dia-
conal meetings). Nor should the Deacons attempt to solve the prob-
lems of our social ills at their meetings, though they should permit
the light of God’s Word to shine upon these problems. It is the duty
and glorious privilege of our Deacons to dispense mercy in the Name
of Christ. First of all to Christ’s own and then also toward those

178

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

that are without. This is “the business that pertains to their office.”
And to this their work at Diaconal meetings should be limited.

From the foregoing it also follows that the Deacons should not
transact the financial affairs of the Church. In some of our Churches
the Deacons have been made to function as a financial committee and
little more. If one of the Deacons happens to be a good bookkeeper
whom the Consistory would like to make budget treasurer, there can
be nothing against his appointment, but he cannot be charged with
this extra work in his capacity of Deacon. In many Churches the Con-
sistories nrfight well appoint financial committees from the member-
ship of the Church, preferably choosing such men as are not burdened
with other important duties. In some instances financial committees
should be appointed so as to consist in part of office-bearers and in
part of non-office-bearers. Circumstances also alter cases in this mat-
ter. But never should the Deacons of a Church be compelled to do
mere committee work for the Elders. This should certainly not be
done if the Deacons have much work of their own to be done.

Why does the article state specifically that the Deacons shall call
upon the Name of God at their meetings? This provision was added
in 1586. Some Diaconates were used by the civil authorities for the
disbursement of moneys for the poor. Jansen thinks that due to this
practice there were some who were beginning to look upon the Dea-
cons’ meetings as being civil and secular in nature. The Churches,
however, desired to maintain the Deacon’s office as an ecclesiastical
institution, and to emphasize the ecclesiastical and spiritual nature of
the Deacons’ meeting they now stipulated that the Deacons should
call upon God’s Name in prayer at their meetings. Aside from this
consideration, which may be true, there would be ample reasons for
this provision in the fact that all our work must be done in deep de-
pendency upon God. Intercession for the poor and the afflicted is
certainly in place at the gatherings of those who have been charged
to alleviate the burdens of the suffering.

As Article 32 provides that the other ecclesiastical meetings shall
be opened with prayer and closed with prayer, so Article 40 rules the
same for Deacons’ meetings. The prayers which are found in our
book of liturgy (Psalter Hymnal, appended pages) have largely fallen
into disuse. This is to be regretted inasmuch as these prayers are
very beautiful and meaningful in content.

3. Supervision by the Ministers over these meetings.

The clause “'whereunto the Ministers shall take good heed and if
necessary they shall be present,” was added to this article in 1686.
Article 25 already stipulated then, as it does now, that the Deacons
are to render a report of their work to the Consistories, but seemingly
some Diaconates considered themselves on equal footing with the
Consistory or had a tendency to place themselves under the authority
of the civil government. Consequently the Synod of 1586 added the
clause under consideration. Thus the ecclesiastical character of the
Deacon’s office is emphasized and the rightful place of our Diaconates
in relation to the Consistories as well.

The supervision here prescribed is unconditional. The Ministers
must give good heed to the Deacons in their work. But the clause
does not stipulate that they must always and regularly attend the
Deacons’ meetings. But if they deem it advisable to attend they may
do so. They have a full right to go at any time and need not wait
for an invitation. If any specific difficulties require the presence of
the Ministers they should go. And if the Deacons request their opinion
on any matter of principle they should also attend the meeting.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

179

When Ministers attend Deacons’ meetings they really do so in their
capacity as Elders, for to these the government and supervision over
the Church has been entrusted. It might be asked, then why does
Article 40 not specify that the Elders shall “take good heed” to this
matter? The fact that the Ministers are here charged to take good
heed and if necessary be present at the meetings of the Deacons har-
monizes with the stipulation of Article 16 regarding the Minister’s
duties. Article 16 among other matters states that the Minister is
“to watch over his brethren, the Elders and Deacons.” Furthermore,
doubtless the Church Order assigns this work of supervision over the
Deacons’ activity to the ministerial Elders since they have received
special training for their task and as a rule are also men of greater
experience and prestige.

Should a Minister, if he attends a Deacons’ meeting preside over it?
He may, but he need not. Ordinarily, it is better that he does not.
Let him simply act the part of a visitor and advisor.

In some of our Churches the Elders visit the Deacons’ meetings in
turn. This is doubtless a good custom. It establishes a close contact
between the Consistory and the Diaconate and gives every Elder an
opportunity to keep in touch with the work. The work of supervision
is thus at least well regulated.

It should always be understood that Diaconates are subject to the
judgment of the Consistories, Classes, and Synods.

4. The Deacons and the major assemblies.

During recent years the question has often been asked whether our
Diaconates should not have their major assemblies. The question is
not whether a Deacon under special circumstances may not take the
place of an Elder, and go as a delegate to our major assemblies, for
example, to Classis. That has often been done in former years and
also more recently. Although it should be remembered that when a
Deacon goes to Classis in the place of an Elder, that then he goes,
not so much as a Deacon, but rather as an assistant Elder, just as all
Deacons are assistant Elders in our smaller Churches, and all Elders
assistant Deacons, according to the permissive clause of Article 37.

The question is therefore not: May Deacons be sent to major as-
semblies?, but rather: Should they be sent? Now some have sug-
gested a special class of major gatherings for our Diaconates. But to
this suggestion it may be objected that our present major assemblies.
Classes and Synods, are representative of all the Churches and all
the work of these Churches. There is therefore no room for specialized
major assemblies. These would make for duplication and conflict.
The Synod of the Reformed Churches of Holland, 1899, decided, in
harmony with this opinion just expressed, that: “The organization
of separate major assemblies for diaconal affairs certainly cannot be
harmonized with the connection and cooperation of the offices and of
the ecclesiastical assemblies, as these are indicated in the Confession
and the Church Order.”

Others have suggested that our Deacons should be delegated to
Classis together with the Ministers and Elders, either with full rights,
or with advisory vote only. But our Church Order has always ruled
that only by way of exception should Deacons be added to the Con-
sistory for all matters that require action. In very few of our larger
Churches, if any, do the Deacons function in all matters which strictly
speaking concern the Elders. Yet if Deacons should be delegated
they would be placed on par with the Elders at the Classes. They
would have to help settle discipline cases, etc., though never doing

180

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

so at home in the government of their own Church. This certainly
would be inconsistent and impractical. Furthermore, to send the
Deacons in advisory capacity would hardly do. It would increase the
expenses of the meetings. The actual instances of diaconal matters
coming before the Classes are so few that this extra trouble and ex-
pense would hardly be warranted. Those diaconal affairs that do re-
quire attention at times can easily be acted upon by the Classes as
now constituted, inasmuch as Ministers and Elders are required to
know and approve or disapprove of all diaconal affairs as it is.

A third suggestion, in harmony with our last remark, would have
all diaconal matters presented to Classes as these bodies are now con-
stituted and through avenues now existing. Thus we already have:
Question three of Article 41, “Are the poor cared for?”; the constant
opportunity for overtures and petitions; Church Visitation; appoint-
ment of committees for special tasks and decisions. When commit-
tees are needed for matters diaconal Classis should not fail to appoint
one or several Deacons on these committees, or perchance a whole
Diaconate.

This latter suggestion has our full approval. It seems to be the
best solution in as far as a solution is needed. Indeed it cannot be
said that the problem on this point is pressing.

ARTICLE XLI.

The classical meetings shall consist of neighboring Churches
that respectively delegate, with proper credentials, a Minister
and an Elder to meet at such time and place as was determined
by the previous classical meeting. Such meetings shall be held
at least once in three months , unless great distances render this
inadvisable . In these meetings the Ministers shall preside in
rotation, or one shall be chosen to preside; however, the same
Minister shall not be chosen twice in succession.

Furthermore, the president shall, among other things, put
the following questions to the delegates of each Church :

1. Are the Consistory meetings held in your Church?

2. Is church discipline exercised?

3 . Are the poor and the Christian schools cared for?

U. Do you need the judgment and help of the Classis for the
proper government of your Church?

And finally, at one but the last meeting and, if necessary, at
the last meeting before the (Particular) Synod, delegates shall
be chosen to attend said Synod.

CONCERNING CLASSICAL MEETINGS

This article and the five which follow it concern in the main our
Classical organization. The present article concerns the Classical
meeting as such; Art. 42, the matter of Churches with more than
one Minister and Delegation to Classis; Art. 43, Mutual Censure at
Major Assemblies; Art. 44, Church Visitation; Art. 46, Acts of Pre-
vious Gatherings at Major Assemblies; Art. 46, Overtures to Major
Assemblies.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

181

1. Origin and nature of Classes.

While the Reformation was in its infancy ecclesiastical life was not
at all well organized. However, the Reformed Churches of the South-
ern Netherlands (Belgium today), and the Calvinistic refugee
Churches in England, as well as the Churches in France, soon began
to form Classes and to meet classically. (Classis is a word derived
from the Latin verb kalein*, signifying: to call. A Classis is there-
fore ecclesiastically speaking a summoned gathering of Churches, or
a group of Churches called together for a meeting, and secondarily,
a group of Churches meeting together at regular intervals in major
assembly.) Before the Wezelian Convention had met, 1568, the Re-
formed Churches had not yet been organized into Classes. However
this convention declared that Classes should be organized as soon as
the conditions of war and persecution permitted. Dr. Bouwman enum-
erates four reasons which demand Classical co-operation and organi-
zation. Classes are required, says this authority, (a) because of the
unity of the Churches in Christ; (b) because the Churches need each
other for their continuance, extension, and purity in faith and con-
duct; (c) because the liberty of the congregation must be maintained,
and classical organization will be a safeguard against domineering
and arbitrary office-bearers; (d) in order that all things may be regu-
lated in the Church according to the Word of God, and order and
discipline may be maintained in the congregation.1

The first Synod, Emden, 1571, drew up nine articles which provided
for Classical organization. This Synod also called three Particular
Synods into being; one for the Reformed Churches of Germany and
Ostfriesland, one for the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, and
one for the Reformed refugee Churches in England.

Moreover, a number of Classes were called into existence. For Hol-
land alone four Classes were formed. But the Reformation grew very
fast at this time so that three years later, 1574, Holland alone num-
bered fourteen Classes. And in 1578 still others were added. Doubt-
less many refugees returned from England and Germany during these
years, inasmuch as the persecution subsided. And this influx of re-
turning refugees naturally stimulated church growth in the home-
land. The Synod of Middelburg, 1581, summarized and combined a
number of previous regulations for Classical gatherings and gave us
Art. 41 as we have it in substance today. Seemingly some Churches
did not immediately co-operate in forming a denomination. At least
the provincial Synod of Gelderland, 1582, found it necessary to de-
clare that, “it is neither advisable nor edifying, that a few Churches
should continue to exist by themselves, but each Church is bound to
join itself to a Classis.” Bouwman holds that the Churches are indeed
free to join the confederation of Churches (het kerkverband), but
they are at the same time obliged to do so, though this obligation is
a moral one and can never be forced. When a Church has accepted
the unity of federation, then it is not at liberty to break away, except
the Churches wdth which she was living in confederation have for-
saken the basis of federation, the common confession according to
the Word of God,2

The article stipulates that classical meetings shall consist of neigh-
boring Churches. A Classis is therefore not a body of men who,
as a bpard of directors, occupy a position of superiority over and
above the Churches.

1. Bouwman: Ger. Xerkrecht, II, 1934, 126-7.

2. Bouwman: Ger. Xerkreclit, II, 1934, 127.

182

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

A Classis is a gathering of Churches meeting for mutual counsel
and support and for united action concerning certain matters common
to the interest of all the Churches.

As a Consistory is a gathering of office-bearers authorized to gov-
ern the affairs of their Church, so a Classis is a gathering of men
representing the various Churches belonging to the Classes, and
charged and authorized by their respective Churches to take part in
all the legitimate labors of Classes.

The Churches are to delegate their representatives “with proper
credentials.” A credential is a valid, black on white, proof of delega-
tion. These consistorial credentials verify that they who claim to be
delegates are actually such. — But that not only. The credentials,
when properly written, also give Classis the assurance that the dele-
gates are authorized representatives and have been given power to
act and charged to take part in all the work of Classis in name of
the Church which they represent. Without credentials no one can be
seated with a decisive vote. If however through an error or through
unavoidable circumstances certain delegates cannot present the pre-
scribed credentials then Classis may hear their testimony and declara-
tion of delegation and seat them, especially in our day when the
Churches and the various delegates know each other well enough so
that fraud is almost out of the question. The incentive to fraud by
impostors does not exist in our day. Nevertheless, the rule stands and
should be maintained. See also Art. 33 on these matters.

How many Churches are required to form a Classis? There is no
rule regulating this matter. Classis Hackensack until 1937 numbered
only six Churches while Classis Orange City consisted of 31 Churches.
Due to the re-alignment of certain Classes and the creation of new
Classes by the Synod of 1937, a greater measure of equality now
exists. This is altogether proper. In 1603 the Synod of Harderwyk
declared that no Classis should consist of less than 10 Churches. But
a definite rule does not exist to this day. And this is well.

What is a Classis Contracta ? When a number of nearby Churches
of a certain Classis hold a meeting in order to consider and act on
matters which can not well wait for the next regular session of
Classis, this gathering is called a Classis Contracta. Literally it
means a Contracted or Reduced Classis. All the Churches are notified
and Churches at some distance from the meeting simply do not send
delegates. They tacitly or silently approve of the action taken at the
Classis Contracta. In Holland the approval of Ministerial credentials,
etc., requiring action between the gatherings of Classis, is left to a
Classis Contracta. We have a Classical Committee to take action in
regard to matters of this kind which can not well wait. Consequently
we seldom hold Classes Contractae. When they do occur they are
usually previously agreed upon at a regular classical gathering in
order that certain affairs which will require classical action in the
near future, but not yet ready for consideration and action, may be
properly attended to. All the Churches are notified, but it is under-
stood that only the nearby Churches will respond, although all the
Churches of Classis are free to send delegates.

2. Membership of classical meetings.

Who are to be delegated? Art. 41 stipulates: “a Minister and an
Elder”. The Synod of Dort, 1578, also ruled that each Church should
be represented by a Minister and an Elder. But Ministers and Elders,
serving Churches of Classis, but not delegated, were accorded an ad-
visory vote by this Synod. The Synod of Middelburg, 1581, however.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

183

stipulated that these visiting Ministers and Elders should not begin
to give advice unless asked to do so. Perhaps the visiting Ministers
and Elders abused the courtesy and privilege somewhat. Perhaps they
talked too often or too long. At least the Synod of ’s Gravenhage,
1586, dropped the provision concerning advisory members altogether
^nd simply stipulated that each Church should be represented by one
Minister and one Elder.

Should Consistories delegate by rotation or by vote? Regarding
delegation to Classis all authorities are agreed that the rotary system
is to be preferred, even as these same authorities favor the method
of choice by ballot for delegation to Synod. If a Church has only one
Minister, the rule of Art. 41 requires that he be delegated constantly.
If a Church has more than one Minister the rotary system would re-
quire that the Ministers are delegated in turn. Inasmuch as every
Church has more than one Elder, it means that Churches which fol-
low the rotary system of appointment will delegate the Elders in
turn. Some Elders seldom go to Classes, whereas others go repeat-
edly. But this is due to circumstances. Some Elders simply can not
leave their work one, two, or more days. Furthermore, Elders of
smaller Churches will be delegated much more frequently than the
Elders from larger Churches, as stands to reason.

It is true that not all office-bearers are equally well qualified for
delegation to Classis. Some Elders excel in pastoral work, i. e., sick
calling, home-visitation work, etc. Others excel in church govern-
mental matters. In spite of this fact it is best to delegate Elders by
rotation. All Elders should qualify themselves for service, and each
delegation to Classis adds to the experience of the delegates. Further-
more, if delegation should be limited to certain Ministers or Elders,
this might foster a spirit of superiority on the part of some. There
are arguments in favor of delegation by ballot and according to
ability. But for our classical meetings we do not believe that these
arguments outweigh the reasons for delegation by rotation. This
does not mean that Consistories should never set the rotary system
of delegation aside, and appoint their delegates by deliberate choice.
When certain matters must be presented to Classis with which one
of the Elders is especially well acquainted for instance, the Consistory
will do wise to appoint that Elder.

For each delegate the delegating Consistory should also designate
an alternate. Inasmuch as very few of our Churches ever have more
than one active Minister an Elder is usually appointed as alternate
to the Minister. When a Church is vacant and has no Minister at all
two Elders are appointed.

According to the provision of the present article the smaller
Churches have just as many delegates at Classis as the larger
Churches have. Every Church, regardless of size, sends two delegates.
This is proper and fair since each individual Church, whether large
or small, is complete in itself and a manifestation of the body of
Christ. Our various Churches are not subdivisions of the real super-
Church, i.e., the denomination. Each Church is an integrity by itself
and not just a section of the actual Church, and laboring under a
superior ruling body to which each section sends delegates in propor-
tion to the number of its members. This conception would fit in with
Churches that maintain the episcopal system of Church government,
as for instance, the Methodist Churches have, but this conception is
not according to our Reformed system of church government. The
Reformed system is a system by which the Churches rule themselves
either directly (Consistories) or indirectly through delegated au-

184

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

thority (Classes and Synods). Our Churches are governed from the
bottom up, not from the top down.

In as far as the varying sizes of our Churches cause a certain
measure of disproportion, the Churches which are overly large should
be divided into two or more Churches. That would also be to the
spiritual welfare of these large Churches because individual work
becomes very difficult in some of our larger Churches.

Those delegated should attend the sessions of Classis as faithfully
as possible. None may absent himself without weighty reason. Pas-
toral duties should as a rule not keep a Minister from going to
Classis. Those delegates who find themselves compelled to leave the
gatherings before the close of the sessions, should before leaving
obtain the approval of the assembly.

3. Frequency and place of meeting.

As to the place of meeting the Wezelian Convention, 1568, decided
that the classical meetings should be held in all the Churches of a
Classis in rotation. This was perhaps decided in order to treat all
the Churches alike. Our fathers were always on the look-out for the
dangers of hierarchism. But furthermore, they also had in mind that
the Churches should thus exercise supervision over each other. Means
of travel were primitive. The delegates would begin to arrive at the
meeting place of Classis the day before, and thus they naturally and
conveniently learned much concerning the affairs of the entertaining
Church. The affairs of this Church were purposefully investigated.
However, when at a later date it was decided that the Churches
should exercise their supervision over each other especially by means
of a classical committee of Church Visitors (see Art. 44) there was
no need of holding Classis in every Church of Classis. Synod of
’s Gravenhage, 1587, decided that classical gatherings should be held
at the time fixed by previous gatherings and at the place determined
by the previous gathering. From then on one Classis decided when
and where the next would meet. This was, without question, a wise
arrangement. Not every Church is situated so that it can be conveni-
ently reached by all the delegates. Moreover, not every Church is able
to entertain a large number of delegates conveniently. However, it
is true that our Classes should meet in as many of its Churches as
possible to give the members of our various Churches opportunity to
attend the sessions of Classis and to stress the fact that all Churches
are, as to their essence, equal.

As to the frequency of classical meetings, the Wezelian Convention,
1568, recommended that meetings be held every two or three months.
The first Synod (Emden, 1571) because of the difficulties of the times,
war and persecution, recommended that the Classes meet every three
or six months. The Synod of Middelburg, 1581, stipulated that the
Classis should meet at least every three months. Thus Art. 41 still
stipulates for the Reformed Churches in Holland. Our redaction reads :
“Such meetings shall be held at least once in three months, unless
great distances render this inadvisable.” For our situation in the
U. S. A., particularly for our western Classes covering in some in-
stances several states, meetings cannot well be held more than twice
a year. For these reasons we have added the clause which permits
Classes to meet less than four times a year. But the ideal is at least
four times a year. If conditions permit four times a year is not any
too often, for our Churches should remain in close touch with each
other and consult each other frequently.

In the Netherlands each classical meeting designates one of its

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

185

Churches to call the next meeting of Classis together, to provide it
with a copy of the minutes of the previous gathering, etc. We do
have “calling Churches” for our Synods, Churches which summon our
Synods. But we do not appoint a summoning or classical Church for
calling together or convening the next Classis. We leave this matter
to the stated clerk of Classis. Perhaps ours is the more efficient
method, but it cannot be denied that whatever can conveniently be
done through Churches should not be charged to individuals or com-
mittees. This is in harmony with Reformed church polity, and safer,
too. However, as long as our stated clerks know the limits of their
charge and watch their step, there is no danger.

4. Presidency at classical meetings.

The article assigns the presidency of classical meetings to the Min-
isters and not to the Elders. Ministers preside at these gatherings,
not because they are better or higher in themselves, but simply be-
cause they as a rule are better qualified for this task, having had
more experience in leading meetings and often more tact and ability
inasmuch as all their time and talents are devoted to Church work.
As far as the Elder’s office is concerned he certainly would be per-
mitted to preside. It is no question of office at all. It is only a ques-
tion of practical wisdom.

Up to the year 1581 the Church Orders provided that the presidents
at classical meetings should be elected. There were good reasons for
this provision. Conditions were irregular and all kinds of matters
would call for solution, for the Churches were still in the formative
period. The most capable men should therefore preside over these
gatherings. But as conditions became more settled and classical
meetings had been held for a number of years, it was not so essential
that only best qualified men should preside. And so the Synod of
1581 made this matter optional. That is to say, it decided that Classes
could let their ministerial delegates preside in rotation, or they could
elect one of them to preside. Presidency by rotation was made pos-
sible at this time, we may believe, in part to avoid also in this re-
spect hierarchical tendencies and to stress the fact that all office-
bearers are essentially equal. But Synod of 1581 did not say that
the rotary system must be followed. It left the whole matter optional.
If a certain Classis would prefer to elect its president at the begin-
ning of each meeting, as had been the rule heretofore, it would be
at full liberty to do so. And thus the matter stands today in the
Netherlands as with us. Even when a Classis regularly lets its min-
isterial delegates preside in turn, then yet it may decide to elect its
president at any given meeting. When difficult cases are to come up
for consideration and he whose turn it would be to preside is inex-
perienced, then for such and like reasons, the Classis should excuse
the Minister concerned from the difficult task and elect a president.

But the Church Order adds a condition. It reads as follows: “how-
ever, the same Minister shall not be chosen twice in succession.”
This proviso was doubtlessly added to ward off hierarchical tendencies.
Once again our Reformed fathers shunned whatever might restore
the evils of a rule by bishops. They wanted the Churches to be truly
Presbyterian as to their self-government. The Churches should be
ruled by the presbyters, not by superior and inferior bishops.

Supposing a certain Minister has just presided at a classical gather-
ing according to his turn, would the following Classis be permitted to
elect him as its president if it should so desire? Yes, for Art. 42 does
not say that the same Minister shall not preside twice in succession,

186

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

but that the same Minister shall not be chosen twice in succession.
However, unless the circumstances are very pressing and extraordin-
ary a Classis should not elect as its president a Minister who has
just presided over the previous gatherings of Classis.

5. The business of classical meetings.

In the early days of our Reformed Churches one of the first activi-
ties on every classical program was the preaching of a sermon by
the Ministers in turn. This was not done for purposes of worship.
It was not a devotional number, but in those early days many Minis-
ters were very poorly trained for their tasks as preachers of the
Gospel. Some of them previously were monks and priests who had
left the errors of Rome, having experienced the reviving and correct-
ing grace which God sent so abundantly through the Reformation.
Some of them had very little schooling and had formerly been trades-
men and workers at various occupations. They had been admitted to
the ministry according to the rule of Article 8, Church Order. It
stands to reason that many of these early Ministers could well afford
some training. To supply this training these sermons were primarily
held. After the sermon had been delivered it would be discussed and
criticized, both as to content and form. That this was the nature and
purpose of these classical sermons may be plain from the provision
accepted by the Synod of Middelburg, 1581, Article 30. This article
reads in part as follows: “The Minister, who has been charged to do
so by the previous Classis, shall deliver a short sermon from the
Word of God, concerning which the others shall judge, and if they
find it lacking in some respect, they shall point this out.” Eventually,
however, nearly all Ministers were thoroughly trained in theology and
also in the art of sermonizing so that there was no great need for
the maintenance of classical sermons. The Holland Synod of 1905
therefore eliminated the classical sermon clause in the Church Order.
Our own Synod of 1914 followed suit. The provision had long since
fallen into disuse. Except for a rare exception classical sermons
were no longer preached and had not been required since the early
days of our denominational existence in the former century.

Our Classes are often required to give careful consideration to
overtures, protests and appeals. Reports rendered by certain standing
committees, such as the Classical Committee, the Home Mission Com-
mittee, etc., always require time and attention. Furthermore the re-
ports rendered by delegates to Synod, or of those appointed to serve
on the Board of Trustees of Calvin College and Seminary and the
Board of Missions, must be received and considered.

An important work of our Classes recurring again and again is the
examination and admittance of men to the ministry.

6. Questions for mutual supervision.

The matter of mutual supervision occupied a prominent place on
the classical schedule of former days. With us the asking of the pre-
scribed questions has become a mere detail on the classical menu card,
usually performed in a rather mechanical fashion, and very often in
great haste. Now the situation was quite different in years of yore.
Formerly the supervisory questions were asked at the beginning of
the meetings, and with variation as the president saw fit. He also
added questions which he might consider pertinent. At least such
were his rights. Synod of Dort, 1578, Art. 29 (14) decided: “The
President having offered prayer, shall ask each delegation in par-
ticular, whether the ordinary discipline is being maintained in their

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

187

congregations; whether they are being attacked by heresies; whether
they doubt the correctness of any part of the accepted doctrine;
whether they are giving good heed to the poor and the schools;
whether they need the advice or help of the brethren regarding the
government of their Church; and other like matters.” Synod of Mid-
delburg, 1581, revised this article somewhat and gave us the ques-
tions as we find them substantially in our present Article 41.

With what purpose then were these questions formulated? To give
the Churches a brief guide in their supervision over each other. The
Church of Rome exercises supervision through its superior officers.
This system the reformation Churches rejected. But they did main-
tain the element of supervision. Only they believed that all Churches
and office-bearers were essentially equal, so they decided that super-
vision should be exercised in a mutual fashion. The Churches should
supervise each other. And this work of mutual supervision was made
to be an important and prominent item in the bill of fare for each
Classis. At a later date it was decided that this work of supervision
at Classis should be supplanted by means of Church Visitors. (See
Article 44.) Fi*om then on the supervisory work at Classis did not
occupy quite such a prominent place on the schedule of each Classis,
we may believe. But the Churches certainly did not intend that the
exercise of mutual supervision at Classis should become a mere per-
functory, last-minute formality. This mutual supervision at the clas-
sical meeting bears a unique character since it is done in the presence
of all the Churches represented there. Hence there is a place for
such examination during the session of Classis though Classis also
appoints special Church Visitors.

The first mutual supervision question is: Are the Consistory meet-
ings held in your Church? The question is not: What is your mode
of procedure at Consistory meetings, etc.?, but are the meetings of
your Consistory held regularly? If any Consistory should fail to
meet regularly, which even for the smallest Churches should mean
at least once a month, such Consistory must be admonished by the
president of Classis, then and there. Good order in the Church of
God requires that the Consistory meet regularly.

Next comes the question: “Is church discipline exercised?” One of
the great reasons for the complete breakdown of many Churches is
that they have failed to exercise Church discipline. The chaff will
ever mix itself with the wheat. Satan will always seek to harm the
cause of God from within. If members who prove to be unfaithful
in doctrine and conduct are tolerated in the Church the evil one has
more than won half the battle. For the reclamation of the unfaithful,
and for the preservation of the Church, constant vigilance on the
score of discipline is absolutely necessary. Discipline is so easily
neglected, especially when men become shallow and lukewarm, and
when erroneous, false doctrines begin to creep in.

The next question is: Are the poor cared for? The significance of
this question is whether the Church concerned provides for its poor.
The poor may not be neglected. The love and mercy of Christ, our
merciful High Priest, must constrain us to be faithful in relieving
want and distress. And particular Churches, which have no poor,
should try to relieve other Churches which are heavily burdened, and
also assist in supporting institutions of mercy which exercise Chris-
tian care toward afflicted members of the Church.

Furthermore the question follows: Does the Consistory support the
cause of the Christian schools? Formerly the question was simply
asked whether the schools were cared for. During post-Reformation

188

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

days the schools were government owned. But the governments were
Reformed and sponsored the cause of the Reformed Churches of Hol-
land. They left the management of the schools to the Consistories.
These acted, we might say, as School Boards. They engaged and ex-
amined the teachers and supervised their instruction, particularly in-
sisting on purity in doctrine. But eventually the government of Hol-
land became “neutral” and the schools also. Then societies for the
establishment and maintenance of Christian Schools were organized.
In view of the situation as it obtains in our country our people have
also sponsored the establishment and maintenance of Christian
Schools. In harmony with this situation the question concerning the
schools was made to read as it does. Thorough Christian instruction
is very necessary for our children in this day of unscriptural teachings
and attitudes, and so our Churches stand committed to the cause of
Christian Schools. (See Art. 21.)

Here the delegates to Classis are asked whether the Consistory is
actually supporting these schools. The meaning is whether the Con-
sistory is giving the cause its moral and active support. Not all
Churches are fully aware of the dangers of a humanistic, man-
centered, Godless, and Christless school. Some Churches and Con-
sistories are apt to be lukewarm and unfaithful. Consequently this
supervisory question is asked at every classical gathering. Needless
to say that this important question should be asked with care and
emphasis in proportion to the evil of public school instruction in a
given locality. It should not be overlooked that the meaning of this
question is not merely: Is there a Christian School for the youth of
your Church, and do you urge the parents to use this school? No,
in harmony with Art. 21, Consistories should ascertain for themselves
whether the instruction which the children of their Church receive is
Christian, or rather Reformed. Consistories must be sure that the
schools which they are supporting are not merely Christian in name
or to a certain extent, but that they are maintaining their distinctive
character to the very best of their ability. (Cf., what has been said
concerning Art. 21.)

Finally the question is asked: Do you need the judgment and help
of the Classis for the proper government of your Church? We speak
of “proper government” in this question. The original reads: “rechte
instelling.” Our term is too limited. For “instelling” refers not mere-
ly to the government of the Church but also to its organization. It
seems to refer to the governmental “set-up” of the Churches as well
as to the proper functioning of this organization. Consistories or
delegates are not expected to raise all kinds of questions dealing with
interesting and perhaps important matters, but they are to limit them-
selves to questions which are at that time actually problems to them.
The purpose of classical gatherings is to help each other in the proper
government of the Churches. Classis is therefore interested in specific
cases, not abstract probabilities.

The president of Classis replies to the questions asked, but often
others are also asked to give their judgment. If anyone cannot agree
with the advice of the president he must say so and explain his stand.

When a matter is weighty the Consistory should formulate its re-
quest for advice or help and write the same on its letter of credence.
In that case Classis will also give reply in the form of a resolution.

Article 41 stipulates that the president shall ask these questions
just discussed “among other things.” Synod of Dort, 1578, decided
that the president should ask these things, “en andere diergelyke
dingen meer.” From this we may infer that this expression “among

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

189

other things” refers not to other activities of Classis, but to other
questions which the president may be inclined to ask. This is also
the most natural and most obvious interpretation of the phrase,
“among other things”. We mention this matter because the other in-
terpretation suggested above is sometimes given. The president of
Classis should therefore feel free to vary the prescribed or suggested
questions as he deems best, and to add other questions as circum-
stances may demand.

We should be very careful not to reduce the work of mutual super-
vision of our Classes to a mere formality, simply kept up to satisfy
the “letter of the law.” In regard to this and other matters we are
apt to lose sight of the real significance and correct method of an
institution and then condemn it, forgetting that what we condemn as
useless is our own perversion of a valuable institution.

7. Elections of delegates to Synod.

If possible delegates to Synod are chosen “at one but the last meet-
ing” of Classis before Synod. This rule holds for Classes that meet
every three or four months. It is better to elect the delegates to
Synod a few months before Synod than immediately before this body
meets, in order that the appointed delegates may give special study
to the matters which are to be presented. But for Classes which can
meet only twice a year this rule would not work so well, and so the
conditional clause “if necessary, at the last meeting before Synod”
has been added to this article.

Article 50 deals more directly with delegation to Synod, and so
we reserve a few thoughts regarding qualifications of delegates,
method of delegation, etc., until we come to the consideration of that
article. However, note that Article 41 speaks of choosing said dele-
gates. We read: “. . . delegates shall be chosen to attend said Synod.”
The presupposition is very clearly that delegates to Synod are ap-
pointed by deliberate choice, by ballot, and not according to some
rotary system. But more of this later.

ARTICLE XLII.

Where in a Church there are more Ministers than one , also
those not delegated according to the foregoing article shall have
the right to attend Classis with advisory vote.

MINISTERS NOT DELEGATED TO CLASSIS ADVISORY
MEMBERS

The present reading of this article dates back to 1914 when our
Churches revised it following the example of the Reformed Churches
in the Netherlands (1905).

1. Equality of representation at classical meetings.

Article 41, as we have noted, provides that every Church shall be
represented at Classis by two delegates, a Minister and an Elder.
Whether the Church is large or small, it is represented at Classis by
two delegates. A Church which consists of 25 families sends two
delegates just as well as a Church of 200 or 400 families. The ques-
tion has often been asked: Is this method of delegation just and fair

190

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

to the larger Churches? In the Netherlands this seeming inequality
is still more prominent since many city Churches have a membership
of thousands of families, each city haying but one Church or congre-
gation, although several church buildings and sometimes more Min-
isters than buildings.

In the consideration of this matter the principle involved should
not escape us- Which principle? That our Classes are composed of
Churches and not of individuals. The membership of our Classes does
not consist of Ministers and Elders but of Churches. The individual
Churches are the units of our classical organizations.

In this respect there is some difference between our conception and
that of the Presbyterian Churches of our land. According to Presby-
terian practice a Minister becomes a member of his Presbytery, or as
we would say, Classis. He presides over the Session (Consistory) of
the Church with which he is connected and is called Moderator of
Session, but he is not a member of the Church which he serves. He
is a member of the Presbytery. According to Reformed church polity,
however, no individual is, strictly speaking, a member of Classis. A
Minister or Elder can only be said to be a member of Classis in the
sense that his Church has delegated him to represent it at a certain
classical gathering.

Now this principle, as will be granted, demands two things. First
of all, that all who receive and exercise a decisive vote at our Classes
shall actually represent one of the Churches of Classis through official
delegation. And secondly this principle demands that each Church
be represented by an equal number of delegates. For practical reasons
it has been agreed that each Church shall be represented by two
brethren, a Minister and an Elder, or, in case the Church is vacant,
by two Elders.

But so it has been asked, is not this arrangement after all unfair
to the larger Churches? We answer: Overly large Churches should
be divided into two or more smaller Churches. In overly large
Churches the individual members do not receive the pastoral care
which they require. By dividing the larger Churches individual spir-
itual care can be exercised much easier. Thus also the “inequality” at
Classical gatherings will be corrected to some extent. But the main
point is that every Church unit is a self-governing manifestation of
the body of Christ standing on par as to rights and authority with
every other Church.

Yet it is true that the larger Churches represent a much larger
number of believers than do the smaller Churches. So it has been
decided that those Churches which have more than one Minister may
send all their Ministers to Classis, with the clear understanding how-
ever that only one shall have a decisive vote and all the rest merely
an advisory vote. In this way the principle of equality is maintained
for all the Churches have the same number of votes, but at the same
time Classes is being served by the advice of all the Ministers labor-
ing in its domain and all the larger Churches thus receive ample op-
portunity to voice their sentiments, problems and convictions.

2. The history of this article.

The Synod of Dort. 1578, ruled that every Church should be repre-
sented at Classis by a Minister and an Elder. Ministers not delegated
received an advisory vote. The Elders of the places where Classis
met also received an advisory vote.

It soon became customary to send all the Ministers which a Church
had to Classis. The presence of all the Ministers was appreciated,

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

191

particularly since some of the best informed men were Ministers of
city Churches and many of the smaller Churches with but one Min-
ister were served by men with but a meager training and little knowl-
edge of Church government. Besides, the problems which the Churches
had to solve were far from easy. Many felt that these Ministers who
served the Classes in an advisory capacity should be seated with a
decisive vote. Synod of 1581 was overtured so to decide but this Synod
ruled against the petitioners. Matters remained as they were. Synod
of South Holland, 1597, again considered the matter and referred the
question to the next General Synod. But this General Synod was not
held until the years 1618-19. During the intervening years the Classes
used their own judgment. Many of them gave all the Ministers a
decisive vote. And the great Synod of Dort, 1618-19, decided that all
the Ministers of Churches having more than one Minister should have
a decisive vote at Classes, except in matters which concerned their
own Churches or their own persons. Synod of Dort, 1618-19, therefore
adapted itself to the practice that had sprung up, but attached one
condition, a condition which was meant to safeguard the Churches
against unfairness and domination.

However, Article 42, as it was accepted by the Synod of 1618-19
was really in conflict with Article 41 as adopted by this same Synod.
And Article 42 also violated the principles explained above. For these
reasons the Churches of Holland returned to the reading of 1578, as
has already been noticed. And we did the same in 1914 at our Synod
in Roseland, Chicago.

ARTICLE XLIII.

At the close of the Classical and other major assemblies ,
Censure shall be exercised over those, who in the meeting
have done something worthy of punishment, or who have scorned
the admonition of the minor assemblies.

MUTUAL CENSURE AT CLASSES AND SYNODS

1. Censure according to Article 43 differentiated from censure ac-
cording to Article 35 and Article 81.

Article 35 provides that the presidents of our assemblies are “to
see to it that everyone observe due order in speaking, to silence the
captious and those who are vehement in speaking, and to properly
discipline them if they refuse to listen.” From this it is plain that
Article 35 and Article 43 have much akin. However, the censure pro-
vided for in Article 35 is to be exercised by the person of the presi-
dent in his capacity as assembly leader. He is to perform this duty
while the meeting is in process. As soon as someone commits an
offense the president must call him to order and rebuke him if need be.

The censure provided for in Article 43, however, is to be exercised
“at the close” of major assemblies. Furthermore, this censure is to
be exercised, not by the president, but by the assembly itself. The
article does not specify who is to exercise the censure which it pre-
scribes. It is not assigned to anyone in particular and therefore it
follows that this censure is to be mutual. The gathering as such ex-
ercises this censure.

192

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Censure according to Article 43 also differs from the mutual censure
prescribed in Article 81. The 81st article of the Church Order pro-
vides that “The Ministers of the Word, Elders, and Deacons, shall
before the celebration of the Lord’s Supper exercise Christian censure
among themselves and in a friendly spirit admonish one another with
regard to the discharge of their office.”

This censure is still often indicated by the Latin term “censura
morum”, i.e., censure of conduct. This censure is also mutual. The
various members of the gathering are required to admonish or criti-
cize each other. But Article 81 refers to Consistories and not to
major assemblies. Furthermore, Article 81 concerns itself not so
much with the conduct of the office-bearers at their meetings, as
with “the discharge of their office.” Mutual censure as exercised at
Consistory meetings before the celebration of the Lord’s Supper con-
cerns itself with this question: Is there anything in the work of any
of the Ministers, Elders or Deacons of the Consistory which should
be criticised? But, Article 43, as stated above, refers to the conduct
of office-bearers at Classis or Synods.

2. Why Article 43 was included in the Church Order.

During the Reformation era many entered the service of the
Churches who knew little concerning good behavior and orderly con-
duct at ecclesiastical assemblies. Seemingly disorder would disturb
classical and synodical gatherings. Men would speak out of turn or
give way to angry words, etc. To curb this evil it was decided that
mutual censure should be exercised at the conclusion of each meeting
in order that the guilty ones might be admonished and rebuked. That
this 43rd article was not included in the Church Order without good
reason may be inferred from the concluding minute of the Particular
Synod of Alkmaar, 1593, which reads as follows: “And furthermore,
with this the Synod was concluded; and the censure being held,
nothing was found (God be praised!) to be worthy of punishment,
but all things took place with edification and peace, and thus the ac-
tions were concluded with thanksgiving to God.” *

Seemingly some were also slow to submit themselves to the judg-
ment of the assemblies, for the present article also provides that such
as had “scorned the admonition of the minor assemblies” should be
censured at the conclusion of classical or synodical gatherings.

By this provision our Churches do not say in the least that we must
always submit to the judgment and declaration of ecclesiastical gath-
erings. . Article 31, as has been noted, clearly specifies, “If anyone
complains that he has been wronged by the decision of a minor
assembly, he shall have the right to appeal to a major ecclesiastical
assembly. . .” But, as Article 31 also specifies, “. . . and whatever
may be agreed upon by a majority vote shall be considered settled
and binding, unless it be proved to conflict with the Word of God or
with the Articles of the Church Order, as long as they are not
changed by a General Synod.”

Now this latter ruling of Article 31 is altogether reasonable.
Therefore Article 43 here declares that also they who have “scorned
the admonition of the minor assemblies” shall be censured at the
conclusion of major assemblies.

We may note with gratitude that we have really outgrown the
need of Article 43, at least as far as its first provision is concerned.
Yet the article does no harm in our Church Order and for the cur-

• cf. Jansen: Korte Verklaring, etc., p. 196.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

193

tailment of any evil habits at our ecclesiastical gatherings it would
be well for the presidents to ask before the gatherings disband
whether any member of Classis or Synod desires to admonish or cor-
rect any of his fellow members regarding their conduct at the meet-
ings of the assembly. And to be sure, in the interest of good order
and denominational unity according to the Word of God, it is well
that all who scorn the admonition of minor assemblies, be called to
order by major assemblies as Article 43 demands.

ARTICLE XLIV.

The Classis shall authorize at least two of her oldest , most
experienced and competent Ministers to visit all the Churches
once a year and to take heed whether the Minister and the Con-
sistory faithfully perform the duties of their office , adhere to
sound doctrine , observe in all things the adopted order , and
properly promote as much as lies in them , through word and
deed, the upbuilding of the congregation, in particular of the
y6uth, to the end that they may in time fraternally admonish
those who have in anything been negligent, and may by their
advice and assistance help direct all things unto the peace, up-
building, and greatest profit of the Churches. And each Classis
may continue these visitors in service as long as it sees fit, ex-
cept where the visitors themselves request to be re-
leased for reasons of which the Classis shall judge.

CHURCH VISITATION

The Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586, drafted and accepted the first
reading of this article. It was enlarged by the Synod of Dort, 1618-19,
and was but slightly altered by our Synod of 1914. The original read-
ing provided that the Church Visitors should by their advice and as-
sistance ‘‘help direct all things unto the peace, up-building, and great-
est profit of the churches and schools.” In our redaction of 1914 the
reference to schools was left out. The schools of Holland at the time
were government owned but the management and control was left to
the Churches. Inasmuch as our public schools are of an entirely dif-
ferent character and are not at all controlled by the Churches, and
since our Christian Schools are owned and managed by Christian
School Societies, the reference to schools was left out of Article 44
in 1914.

1. The origin of Church Visitation.

Church Visitation was not instantly introduced. It is some time
after the Reformation that we hear of it. In fact, many leaders at
first opposed its introduction. Some claimed that it was dangerous to
introduce it inasmuch as it might lead to hierarchism, an evil of
which the Churches were much afraid.

At first the need for Church Visitation was less urgent since the
Classes met much oftener, in some instances every month. These
classical meetings, as we have noted before (cf., Art. 41), were held
in the various Churches of the Classes in turn. This was done to
counteract hierarchism. Our fathers wanted to stress the fact that
all Churches are equal in authority. But the classical gatherings

194

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

were also held in all the Churches in rotation, so that the affairs of
the Church with which the Classis met could be observed and inves-
tigated at close range. Mutual supervision was in this way exercised
at Classis. But it was difficult to meet in rotation and to meet so
frequently. Ultimately the Classes met four times a year and only in
those Churches which could best entertain a number of delegates.
Thus the need for Church Visitation became greater. The Churches
of the province of Zeeland instituted Church Visitation in the year
1581. These Churches also asked the General Synod of that year to
introduce it for all the Churches. But this Synod answered that it
deemed a rule by General Synod in part unnecessary and in part
dangerous: unnecessary, inasmuch as the Classes and Particular
Synods could introduce Church Visitation wherever necessary; and
dangerous, because the Visitors might begin to act as if they were
superintendents. But demand for a general introduction of the cus-
tom continued, especially in the province of South Holland. Those
who advocated the introduction of Church Visitation said that many
of the Churches in their provinces showed little regard for denomi-
national unity and that many of the Ministers lacked the necessary
training, and therefore needed some supervision and control.

And so we find that the Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586, recommended
the introduction of Church Visitation to the Classes. Soon the prac-
tice was maintained in all the provinces except North Holland. The
Churches of this province desired to keep the custom optional. But
the great Synod of Dort, 1518-19, made the practice general and
imperative. Perhaps the turmoil and harm caused by the Arminian
errors had convinced this Synod that mutual censure, properly con-
ducted, is highly necessary.

2. The task of Church Visitors.

The committee of Church Visitors, so Article 44 specifies first of
all, are to take heed “whether the Minister and the Consistory faith-
fully perform the duties of their office.” All the office-bearers should
diligently perform their duties.

The welfare of the Churches demands loyalty and devotion to duty
on the part of the office-bearers. The spiritual life of God’s people
cannot develop normally unless the office-bearers are true and diligent.
All too many Protestant Churches have indeed offices and office-
bearers, but little more. And the condition of these Churches show
the clear results of this neglect.

In the second place the Visitors shall give particular heed to the
doctrinal position of the office-bearers. Impure and false doctrine on
the part of office-bearers is very dangerous. Office-bearers who cher-
ish wrong conceptions will not only tolerate error in the Church, but
they will also sponsor the spreading of wrong conceptions. False
doctrine destroys both Churches and souls, and is always a dishonor
to God.

In the third place the Visitors must determine whether or not the
“adopted order” is observed in all things. This refers to the Church
Order. The Church Order has been adopted by all the Churches and
for all the Churches. Its fundamental rulings are gleaned from God’s
own Word or based upon the principles expressed in that Word.
Others are rules for good order mutually agreed upon. The former
should be maintained because they carry direct divine authority and
the latter because good order demands it. Our Church Order is very
brief. All of its rulings have been approved and adopted to promote
the true spiritual welfare of God’s people. Churches and office-bearers

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

195

who ignore the “adopted order” promote disharmony and conflict. All
wilfulness and arbitrariness should be barred from the Churches. The
Church Order allows for much liberty and freedom of action. It does
not rule out all differences of opinion and of methods. But regarding
certain fundamental principles it is positive. Now the Visitors must
note, in the interest of God’s Church and His people, whether the
rules agreed upon are adhered to.

In the fourth place the Church Visitors are to note whether the
office-bearers are “properly promoting as much as lies in them,
through word and deed, the upbuilding of the congregation, in par-
ticular of the youth.” The forces of sin are constantly undermining
the Church of God. Decay must ever be warded off. Forces within
and without are ever threatening the welfare of God’s heritage. Con-
sequently God’s special servants must always work for “the upbuild-
ing of the congregation.” They must do this by word and deed.
Words are necessary, but words must be accompanied with deeds.
Every Consistory must do its utmost. Vigorous application to duty
is always necessary. Without constant vigilance and loyal activity
the spiritual life of any Church will recede. It is especially gratify-
ing that the young people and children receive special consideration
in this connection. Unless the lambs of the flock are properly tended
and fed how can the cause of God flourish? Church Visitors are
therefore charged to bear the youth of the Churches in mind par-
ticularly as they confer with the various Consistories.

3. The appointment of Church Visitors.

Church Visitation is mutual in character. By means of this insti-
tution the Churches watch for each other’s welfare and advise and
admonish each other when necessary. Church Visitation is not an
institution of supervision, exercised by superior officers over inferior
officers. Neither is it supervision exercised by an authoritative su-
perior body over inferior bodies. The various Churches comprising
a Classis, being: all equal in authority, supervise each other. Conse-
quently the Visitors are also appointed by these Churches themselves
as their representatives for this work. These appointments take place
at classical gatherings of the Churches.

Are Elders also eligible for this work? Article 44 speaks only of
Ministers. Yet this supervisory and advisory work is first of all the
task of overseers or Elders and not that of its Ministers or preachers.
Ministers who act as Visitors do so in their capacity of ruling Elders
and not in their capacity as teaching Elders. Consequently as far
as the office of our Elders is concerned they are altogether eligible
for Church Visitation work. Yet Article 44 stipulates that Ministers
shall be appointed for this work. Doubtless because Ministers as a
rule have more time and better qualifications for this important work.
But no Classis would violate a principle of Reformed church polity
if it should appoint an Elder for this work. Years ago some of the
provincial Synods of Holland, so Jansen informs us,* had rules which
definitely permitted the appointment of Elders as Church Visitors.

How many Visitors should each Classis have ? The article stipu-
lates “at least two.” The appointment of two Visitors for each Classis
or group of Churches is common practice in all our Classes. Article
44, however, permits the appointment of more than two. If at any
time a Classis deems it advisable, it may appoint three, four, or more
Visitors to visit a Church or group of Churches. If ever more than

* Jansen: Korte Yerklaring, etc., p. 198.

196

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

two Visitors are appointed, it may be well to include one or more
Elders in order that the semblance and danger of ministerial domi-
nance may be avoided.

Which Ministers should be appointed as Visitors? The article
stipulates the “oldest, most experienced and* competent.” Church Visi-
tors are often confronted with vexing problems. If they are to extend
real help in the solution of such problems, it stands to reason that
they must be men well versed in the principles and practices of Re-
formed Church government; they must have a good doctrinal under-
standing and must have a great deal of practical wisdom and experi-
ence. As a rule these qualifications are found in a greater measure
with the older Ministers than with the younger ones. Consequently
we read: “The Classis shall authorize at least two of her oldest, most
experienced and competent Ministers. . .” Our fathers did not mean
to say however, that the oldest men are always the most experienced
and competent. The original Latin reads: “Minimum binos, aetate,
experientia, et prudentia maxime conspicuos.” The meaning, there-
fore, is clearly that the Classes shall choose at least two of its Min-
isters who, by reason of their age, experience and wisdom, are most
outstanding. Now as a rule the older Ministers have more experience
and wisdom than the younger Ministers. But not always. Classes may
have to pass by an older man for a younger man inasmuch as the
younger man is providentially better qualified for the work of Church
Visitation than the older man. But as a rule the older men are best
qualified for this service. In the past many of our Classes have ap-
pointed men almost at random. Young men just in the ministry would
sometimes be appointed, even when they had no outstanding qualifi-
cations for this work and when much better qualified men were avail-
able. Doubtless these careless appointments were due to the fact that
the real significance of Church Visitation according to Article 44 was
lost sight of. The work was performed by many visitors in a routine,
mechanical fashion. The list of questions approved by Synod of 1922
were asked in such a mechanical fashion that some suggested that
this work be done by means of mailed questionnaires. That would
save time, money, and trouble. Synod of 1936 urged all Classes: “to
perform this work (the work of Church Visitation) in a way most
conducive to the (welfare) of the Churches, in full accord with the
spirit of Article 44 which militates against all mechanization and re-
quires a thorough discussion on all matters pertaining to the welfare
of the Church, particularly of the youth.” *

This was no doubt a necessary and timely warning. It would not
have been out of place if in this connection Synod had urged the
Classes specifically not to choose the Visitors at random, but only
from among those Ministers who by reason of their age, experience
and wisdom, are most outstanding.

How are the Visitors to be appointed? Not by rotation, but only
by deliberate choice as is plain from the foregoing, and also from
the very words of Article 44. These Visitors should preferably be
appointed for the term of one year with the understanding that the
Church Order permits immediate reappointment. To appoint men for
a long period of time might foster hierarchical tendencies. Voetius in
his day urged that at least one of the two or three Visitors be re-
elected so as to secure a measure of continuity, a quality both de-
sirable and necessary for Church Visitation work.**

• Acts of Synod, 1936, p. 123.

•• Janen: Korte Verklaring\ etc., 1923. p. 199.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

197

4. Time and method of Visitation.

The Church Visitors are to visit all the Churches once a year. If
special conditions require that the visit be repeated, the Visitors re-
peat their call. These special visits may be made at the request of
the Consistory concerned, or upon the initiative of the Church Visitors.
The Churches have a right to call upon the Church Visitors when-
ever their help or counsel is needed. And the Visitors have a right
to come even when not requested to do so. Of course, the Visitors
must give an account of all their work to Classis. Consistories or
Consistory members who feel that the Visitors have neglected their
duty, or have gone beyond their authorization, or have misdirected
matters, may appeal to Classis.

Must the regular visits of Church Visitors be announced to the
congregation? Yes, to give the members an opportunity to appear
before the Consistory in the presence of the Visitors to voice their
disagreement with the Consistory on a pending issue.

Must the Visitors consider possible complaints against a Consistory
on the part of members? Yes, although as stands to reason, the Visi-
tors must first assure themselves of the fact that the parties con-
cerned have previously sought to secure satisfaction. New cases may
not be brought before the Church Visitors. These must first be pre-
sented to the Consistory. Then if no settlement is reached and if the
complaint remains, the Church Visitors are required to consider the
case. In this connection it should be remembered, however, that
Church Visitors can only advise a Consistory as representatives of
all the Churches of a Classis. They can not make decisions which are
binding for a Consistory.

Are the meetings at which the Visitors are present private or open ?
Private, inasmuch as personal matters are constantly touched upon.
The true welfare of the Churches demands a certain measure of
secrecy.

Who presides at Consistory meetings at which the Church Visitors
are present? The president of the Consistory. Very often the Visitors
take complete charge of the meeting, one of the Visitors acting as
president and the other as secretary. In fact the “Rules for Church
Visitation” approved by Synod of 1922 state, “At the meeting one
of the Visitors shall function as president, and the other as clerk.”
This rule, however, should be altered in such a fashion that the Visi-
tors merely act as president and clerk of the committee which meets
with the Consistory. For Visitors to take over a Consistory meeting
without being asked to do so specifically fits in well with Churches
holding the Episcopal form of government, but not with those holding
the Reformed system. When trouble disturbs, a Consistory will do
wise to ask one of the Visitors to preside over the Consistory meeting.

Article 44 stipulates that all the Churches shall be visited once a
year. This does not mean that the Visitors may not visit a Church
more than once a year. The very fact that Church Visitors are not
merely charged to visit each Church once, but for a period of one or
two years, indicates that their work is not finished when the prescribed
annual visit has been completed. At any time, as has been noted, they
may be called in by one of the Churches. And whenever they feel in
duty bound to do so they may repeat their visit. Due to great dis-
tances and the proportionate expense involved some Classes conduct
regular Church Visitation only every other year. As soon as condi-
tions permit the annual visits prescribed should be carried out.

Visitors should not dwell overly long on matters which are of minor

198

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

import. They should conserve their time for matters of greater im-
port. Certain matters require a very brief annual check-up, as a
matter of safety. But the greatest amount of good proceeds from
the work of Church Visitors if they will reduce the routine aspect of
their labors to a minimum and individualize their work in each
Church, stressing those matters which require special attention. They
should by all means so arrange their work that ample time will be
left for the consideration of questions which the Consistory may de-
sire to present.

Should individual Consistory members also be permitted to bring up
for discussion questions of their own choosing ? If time permits, there
can be no objections against this. Informal discussions on matters of
Church government or matters which concern the spiritual welfare of
our Churches may help to make the work of the Visitors more in-
teresting and more fruitful.

According to our Rules for Church Visitation some matters are to
be discussed in the presence of all the Consistory members, Ministers,
Elders, and Deacons. But questions which concern the work and the
conduct of Ministers in particular, are discussed in their absence. The
same rule holds for Elders and Deacons. This is a good rule. If the
work of mutual supervision carried on through Church Visitation is
to have real significance, then thoroughness and frankness must mark
this work. Faults and shortcomings, worthy of mention, will come to
the attention of the Visitors much more readily if the various groups
of office-bearers will absent themselves for a little while than when
they remain in the gathering. Some have said that if a matter re-
quires mentioning the responding brother should be as willing to
broach the matter in the presence of the party concerned as in his
absence. But this is reasoning too idealistically. Moreover, it is better
in many instances for the office-bearer who may need correction that
he does not know who broached the matter. To know who mentioned
the matter would tend to introduce a personal element which is un-
desirable.

It should not be forgotten in this connection that Consistory mem-
bers should not lodge complaints against each other at the time of
Church Visitation, unless the matter has first been discussed privately
with the brother concerned, or has been mentioned at the time of
“censura morum”, i.e., mutual censure, held four times a year in
each Consistory. (See Art. 81.) Only if Church Visitors in their
discussion with the brethren discover a condition which requires cor-
rection do they have a right to mention the matter forthwith, and
shall do so, unless they feel that another approach, i.e., action by the
Consistory or private consultation, promises to be more fruitful.

Should the Church Visitors themselves record their visit in the
minute book of each Consistory? Preferably this should be left to
the Clerk of the Consistory. The custom referred to seems to have
originated in the Hervormde Kerk van Nederland when the Reformed
conception of Church government began to fade and wane. Church
Visitors began to function more and more as superintendents. They
examined the external affairs of the Churches rather closely. They
inspected the Church buildings and grounds, the record books, etc.
The spiritual emphasis was lost. The real task of the Visitors was
largely or wholly neglected. Then the Visitors, at the conclusion of
their visit as “inspectors”, would declare over their signatures in the
minute book not only that Church Visitation was conducted by them
but also that all things were found to be in good order, or else the
contrary if such were the case. Of course if a certain Consistory

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

199

desires that the Church Visitors shall make a record in the minute
book of the Consistory of the fact that they have visited with the
Consistory that is harmless and needless. The clerk of the Consistory
can just as well do this himself. And as far as the books are con-
cerned, a committee of Church Visitors is not called upon to make
a close inspection of all the books and records. A casual glance at
the books or a paging of the Church records with a view to order and
neatness, for instance, does not warrant the Visitors to declare over
their signature that all things were found to be in good order.

ARTICLE XLV.

It shall be the duty of the Church in which the Classis and
likewise the (Particular) or General Synod meets to furnish
the following meeting with the minutes of the preceding .

ACTS OF PREVIOUS GATHERINGS AT MAJOR ASSEMBLIES

1. The reason for this ruling.

In Article 34 our Church Order stipulates, “In all assemblies there
shall be not only a president, but also a clerk to keep a faithful record
of all important matters.” Now the present article rules that the
Church, in which the Classis or the Synod meets, shall see to it that
a copy of these previous minutes or Acts are present: not a copy of
the Acts of all previous assemblies, but a copy of the Acts of the
preceding gathering only. The provision of this article was first
adopted by the Synod of Dort, 1578. As adopted by this Synod the
article stipulated that the Acts of the previous Synod should be
present at the next Synod. The convening Church, with which also
the Synod would meet, was charged to see to it that said Minutes or
Acts were present. The Synod of Middelburg, 1581, revised the article
so that from this year on, the rule also applied to Classes.

In our day and age the provision of this article is less urgent. We
have printed copies of our synodical Acts, a copy of which is sent to
every Consistory member in the whole denomination. Moreover, each
Consistory receives a copy for its files or archives. Individuals who
desire a copy can secure one at a nominal charge. But in former days,
when printing was much more costly, there was no such widespread
circulation of Synodical decisions. Consequently the provision of Ar-
ticle 45 was wholly in place. To conduct a synodical meeting without
the Acts of the previous gathering being on hand would be very
unwise to say the least.

2. This responsibility attached to the convening Church.

We of today also see to it that the Acts or minutes of previous
assemblies are present at the next one. As a rule the Acts or minutes
of assemblies for several years back are on hand in order that these
may be consulted if necessary. But we expect our stated clerks to
see to it that these Acts or minutes are on hand. In former days, and
this is still true for the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands today,
the Churches preferred to leave such matters to particular Churches,
rather than to individuals. Stated clerks might assume too much
authority. Our fathers had seen and suffered much in the Roman

200

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Church at the hands of individuals who were wrongfully entrusted
with superior authority and who abused their authority fearfully.
Our forebears always avoided that which was or might lead to the
centralization of authority in individuals. They avoided this not only
from practical considerations but also because they believed that the
Churches should be governed by the Churches, through the office-
bearers acting, not as individuals, but as organized groups, i.e., the
Consistories. As we have said before, in the interest of efficiency, we
have appointed stated clerks. But let these brethren watch their step
and do no more than has been assigned to them. Let them shun all
assumption of authority. Let us also remember that Article 45 con-
tinues to be in force. The convening and entertaining Church may
rely on the stated clerk for the execution of this provision but the
Church continues to be responsible.

3. The matter of ecclesiastical archives.

In connection with the foregoing we call attention to the subject of
our ecclesiastical archives. Each Church should preserve all papers,
documents and books or booklets which have bearing on its origin
and history. This would include first of all the consistorial minute
books and all legal documents, as well as membership records, reports,
etc. But any booklets, articles, or papers which have or may have
historical significance should be included. Many Churches have been
negligent on this score so that the historical origin of some Churches
is hardly known. Some Churches do not even have all their old minute
books. Through neglect they have been lost. It is a good thing that
the Rules for Church Visitors also contain a question regarding the
archives of the Churches visited. Every Church should have a fire-
proof repository where all valuable books and papers can be safely
kept. All of our Churches, especially our larger ones, should appoint
one of the Consistory members to act as archivist, whose duty it is
to keep the archive in good order and up-to-date.

The classical archives should contain all valuable papers, reports,
historical data, minute books, synodical Acts, etc. Each Classis should
ask one of its Churches to keep the classical archive. And when the
Church Visitors call they should make it a point to inquire after the
management and state of this classical archive. They should report
their findings to Classis.

Synod should likewise request a competent Church to keep the
synodical archive. This synodical archive should again not only in-
clude all official documents and Acts, but also books, booklets, papers
of a historical nature and dealing more or less directly with the origin
and history of our denomination. To a certain extent the matter here
referred to is covered by the Historical Committee which Synod of
1934 appointed and which it charged “to gather and preserve books
and documents of historical value pertaining to the history of our
Church and the Church from which we originated and to religion in
general, and to provide a room and facilities in the College or Sem-
inary building where they can be properly preserved and displayed.” *

But this decision does not provide for the safekeeping of official
documents. Acts of Synod, etc. Nor will that which is gathered by
the Historical Committee be kept in a fire-proof vault. It would not
be needless duplication if some Church were asked and authorized to
secure a fire-proof vault in which the Consistory of that Church would

* Acts of Synod. 1934, p. 81.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

201

keep the archives of Synod. The large, cosmopolitan Church of Ams-
terdam has acted as Archivist for the Reformed Churches of the
Netherlands for many years. The Synod Zwolle, 1911, authorized this
Church to build a special fire-proof vault, as we suggest above.

ARTICLE XLVI.

Instructions concerning matters to be considered in major
assemblies shall not be written until the decision of previous
Synods touching these matters have been ready in order that
what was once decided be not again proposed, unless a revision
be deemed 'necessary .

READING OF PREVIOUS DECISIONS

1. Historical origin of this article.

Just as Article 45, so also this article finds its origin in the fact
that formerly printing was far less common than it is now. Printing
was indeed discovered during the early part of the 15th century, but
it was at first a very expensive enterprise. The Reformation Churches
could not afford to print the Acts of their major assemblies for wide
distribution. They had to do the next best thing. The clerks of the
assemblies, so we are told, would read the decisions of the meeting,
and then the delegates would copy them. Consequently, only a few
men or Churches would be in possession of a complete set of Acts of
Synod. The result was that many Churches would come with ques-
tions and matters at their Classes to be presented to Synod which had
already been acted upon. The Classes were not always aware of this
fact and so duplication and reduplication resulted. To avoid this evil
the Synod of Emden, 1571, decided that the decisions of previous
Synods should be read (at classical gatherings) before any matters
were sent on to Synod.

The Act of the first few Synods were not so elaborate and bulky
that the provision of Article 46 could not be carried out. Even the
great Synod of Dort, 1618-19, maintained this article as to its original
intent. The decisions of previous Synods had to be read at classical
gatherings at which matters for the synodical assemblies were con-
sidered. As time progressed the instruction of Article 46 became well
nigh impossible of execution and also less necessary, for printing be-
came more common and synodical decisions became very numerous.
And so the Reformed Churches of Holland in their redaction of Article
46, approved in 1905, changed the article so that it requires only the
reading of those previous synodical decisions which have a direct
bearing on the matter which is being considered for the synodical
agenda. And the reading of these previous synodical decisions is now
generally left to the individuals or Churches which bring matter to
Classis for Synod.

2. Present significance of Article 46.

In the first place Article 46 stresses the fact for us that we should
be well informed regarding synodical decisions in order that we may
help to avoid needless repetition. In the second place, mattera once
decided upon must not be raised again unless there is a good reason
for doing so. The time of our major assemblies is too precious to be

202

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

spent needlessly. Furthermore, the Churches lose confidence in their
major assemblies if these constantly change their decisions. Constant
reconsideration and constant change reveals a certain ignorance re-
garding principles and issues involved and it undermines the stability
of our church life. Decisions are not taken seriously when changes
are constantly made. In the third place, Article 46 clearly indicates
that matter previously acted upon may be resubmitted if this is
deemed necessary. Our assemblies are not infallible. Errors are
sometimes made. And erroneous decisions should be changed as soon
as possible. Let us remember, however, that we should proceed with
wisdom and care. As much as in us lies, we should avoid disturbance
and confusion. The truth of God must always prevail, come what may.
But changes in methods and plans not directly drawn from and dic-
tated by the Word should be made cautiously and upon due considera-
tion.

3. Various ways in which matters may be brought before
major assemblies.

The present article speaks of instructions to be considered in major
assemblies. One way in which matter can be presented to major as-
semblies is therefore by means of instructions. Delegates to our major
assemblies (Classes or Synods) can take an active part in the gather-
ings because they have been instructed to do so. Their Consistories
or Classes have sent them. These bodies do not instruct their delegates
specifically, telling them just what to say and just how to vote. That
would even be impossible for the delegating Churches do not know
beforehand all the matters that will be presented. Besides, it would
be harmful to instruct delegates just what to say and how to vote
even if this were possible as we have indicated in our consideration
of Article 33. But each delegating body does have the right to in-
struct its delegates to present certain information, suggestions or
overtures to the assembly. These matters should be written on the
letters of credence or accompany the letter of credence in written
form, properly signed. By means of these instructions matters may
therefore be presented to major assemblies.

In the second place, matters may come up for consideration at our
classical gatherings through the avenue of Article 41. This article
provides for what the Dutch call “de rondvraag.” According to Article
41 the president of Classis must put the questions indicated in this
article to all the delegates. By means of this general inquiry, matters
may therefore be brought before Classis, particularly in response to
the question: “Do you need the judgment and help of the Classis for
the proper government of your Church?

In the third place, matters may be presented to our major assem-
blies by way of appeal. (Cf. Art. 31.) Reformed Church polity au-
thorities do not make a sharp distinction between a protest and an
appeal, nor between a grievance and a complaint. Neither are these
distinguished in the Church Order. In civil courts technical terms and
technical interpretation of terms means a great deal. But in the
Church of God we are first of all interested in the matter as such.
We stress spirit and content, not terms and technicalities. In general
it may be said that an appeal is made regarding the decision of a
minor assembly to a major assembly. The term protest would most
naturally apply first of all to a verbal or written notice of vigorous
disagreement with a decision of any assembly, which notice is deliv-
ered as soon as possible after the decision has been made and while
the assembly is still in session. But the terms appeal and protest are

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

203

also used interchangeably. A grievance or complaint is a written ex-
pression of dissatisfaction with the decision of a Consistory, Classis,
or Synod, with the request that the assumed wrong be righted. The
word grievance seems to imply that the conscience of the aggrieved
person or body is burdened. The word complaint seems to imply that
an injustice has been committed from which the complainant seeks
relief. The Dutch speak of “bezwaar-schrifti” and “aanklacht.”

In the fourth place, matters may come up for consideration law-
fully at our assemblies through motions formulated and presented
right on the floor of the assembly and suggested by the need of the
hour and growing out of discussions of matters presented to the gath-
ering. It stands to reason that no Classis or Synod should act rashly
in its consideration of matters which have not appeared upon the
previously published agenda. Weighty matters, especially, should not
be acted upon with overly much haste, but rather held in abeyance so
that there may be time for study and consideration.

In this connection we would remark in the first place, that all ques-
tions and matters brought to major assemblies should concern definite
problems. If there is no specific instance — sometimes called “con-
crete case” from the Dutch “concreet geval” — no question or problem
should be presented to Classis or Synod. One major gathering can
not begin to consider abstract and theoretical problems. Time would
fail them utterly and the consideration of abstract problems, though
very good in itself, is not the task of our ecclesiastical assemblies as
such. A Classes or Synod is no question box. And it should also be
remembered that specific instances should be presented as such. That
is to say, no one should come to a Classis or Synod with questions or
problems, phrased in general terms, expecting a general ruling of
the major assembly, even though there be a specific instance which
occasions the presentation of the question. Specific instances should
be presented as specific instances and acted upon as specific instances.

Secondly it should be noted that ordinarily matters come to our
major assemblies through and from our minor assemblies, either
Consistories or Classes. However, individual members may go directly
to Classis or Synod. Of course, if the matter be an appeal, protest,
grievance, or complaint, the assemblies concerned should be previously
informed a reasonable length of time previous to the gathering to
which the appeal is made. The body concerned should receive an exact
copy of the document going to the major gathering in order that it
may still have opportunity to settle matters or to prepare an explana-
tion and defense. Furthermore, every individual member, man or
woman, of our Churches may address a request to Classis or Synod,
petitioning certain actions or decisions if the matter concerns “the
Churches of the major assembly in common.” (Cf. Art. 30.)

In the third place, major assemblies may refer matters which come
up for consideration, to the minor assemblies for their deliberation
and reaction. But they need not do this. Often it is a wise policy to
follow. But sometimes this method is unnecessary. Sometimes there
is danger in delay and safety in immediate action.

Formerly it was not customary to send the agenda for major as-
semblies to minor assemblies. Only committees appointed at a former
meeting to study difficult matters and to suggest a solution would
send their findings and their advice to the minor assemblies previous
to the gathering of major assemblies. As far as possible we now
send the complete agenda to all Consistories. In fact, one copy of the
synodical agenda, as well as a copy of the later Acts, is sent for each
Consistory member. This is a commendable custom. It promotes a

204

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

thorough knowledge of, and a lively interest in the affairs of the
Churches. Let all Consistory members diligently read these docu-
ments! And let the minor assemblies take time to discuss the agenda.

Reports of standing committees, usually called boards, should also
be presented to the minor assemblies. When this is not done it is far
more difficult to follow and to control the 'work of these bodies.

ARTICLE XLVII.

(Every year [or if need be oftener ] fowr or five or more
neighboring Classes shall meet as a Particular Synod, to which
each Classis shall delegate two Ministers and two Elders. At
the close of both the Particular and the General Synod, sortie
Church shall be empowered to determine with advice of Classis ,
the time and place of the next Synod.)

PARTICULAR SYNODS

Article 47, as well as Article 48 and Article 49, is found between
parentheses in the Church Order. This was done because we do not
yet have Particular Synods, and all of these articles refer, in the first
place, to Particular Synods. And yet, sooner or later, we may find that
we should begin to meet as Particular Synods. Particular Synods will
be held as soon as conditions warrant and require their institution.
Consequently these articles have been retained in our redaction of
the Church Order of Dort, but we have placed them between paren-
theses for the time being.

1. The origin of Particular Synods.

The Convention of Wezel, 1568, already advised the institution of
Particular Synods. And the first Synod of the Reformed Churches of
Holland, Emden, 1571, decided that three such Particular Synods
should be organized. At this time the Churches were still badly
persecuted. Many of the Reformed believers had taken refuge to
Germany and England. So the Synod of Emden decided that three
Particular Synods should be organized: one in Germany, one in Eng-
land, and one in the Netherlands itself.

However, from 1572 on the cause of the Reformation was carried
forward by long strides, and greater measures of liberty were acquired
so that large numbers of refugees soon returned to the home-land.
Consequently the Synod of Dort, 1578, finding that the Churches were
already gathering together in Particular Synods, regulated matters as
follows: Each Particular Synod was to consist of four or five Classes.
Two Ministers and two Elders were to be delegated from each Classis.
Ministers and Elders not delegated were permitted to be present at
the gatherings of the Particular Synods as guests, but they did not
receive a decisive vote. Each Particular Synod should designate one
of the Churches of its group to summon the next meeting of the Par-
ticular Synod, but this summoning was not to take place without
advice of the Classis to which this summoning Church belonged. Each
Particular Synod was to meet annually unless circumstances required
the Synod to meet oftener.

These stipulations of the Synod of 1578 were subsequently gath-
ered into one article and remained unchanged for the Reformed

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

205

Churches of Holland until 1905, when it was stipulated that the con-
fines of the Particular Synods should, with minor exceptions, coincide
with the confines of the various geographical provinces. Our redaction
of 1914, however, left the 47th article as it has been for more than
three centuries. Our situation did not require a change.

2. Character of Particular Synods.

Article 47 makes it plain that Synods are gatherings of Classes
and not gatherings of persons. From this follows that every Synod is
a gathering of Churches and not a gathering of men who constitute a
ruling body in or over the Churches. True, Synods are further re-
moved from the particular Churches than the Classes are. But they
are nevertheless definitely gatherings of Churches. At Consistories all
the Ministers and Elders (and Deacons) meet. At Classis only two
Consistory members for each Church meet, but every Church is never-
the less represented directly. At Particular Synods all the Churches
of every Classes are represented, but the majority of the Churches will
be represented indirectly, through a limited number of Ministers and
Elders chosen by the Churches at the various Classes. Synods are
therefore further removed from the particular Churches than Classes
are. The representation at Synods is less direct, and their task is
more limited.

3. Delegation to Particular Synods.

Each Classis delegates an equal number of delegates. The larger
Classes have no more representatives than do the smaller Classes. The
same principle which operates in the matter of delegating to Classes
operates here also, although in this instance it is more a matter of
orderly procedure than of principle. For the particular Church is the
unit of denominational federation and unity. This fact certainly de-
mands that each Church be represented at Classes by an equal
number of delegates, but it cannot be said that this fact also demands
that every Classis, large or small, shall be represented by an equal
number of delegates at our Synods. But for reasons of good order and
regularity it is very desirable that all Classes or Particular Synods
delegate the same number of men. Overly large Classes should be
subdivided into smaller Classes. This makes for better work and at
the same time assures the Churches of these Classes of an equitable
representation at major assemblies.

Article 47 stipulates that two Ministers and two Elders shall be
delegated by each Classes to the Particular Synods. If ever our
Churches decide to establish Particular Synods these articles which
pertain to such Synod will doubtlessly be carefully reviewed. In all
likelihood some changes will have to be made, particularly as to the
number of delegates which each Classis would send. Some Particular
Synod would consist of but three Classes perhaps. Such Synods would
then number but 12 delegates. This number would be needlessly and
undesirably small. The Reformed Churches of Holland have revised
the article in 1905 so that small Particular Synods numbering only
three or four Classes may send three Ministers and three Elders each.

Delegates to Particular and General Synods should be chosen by
ballot. They should never be sent according to some mechanical plan,
for example, alphabetical order. Rotational delegation of Elders to
Classes has very much in its favor, but synodical meetings are of such
importance that those who are providentially most able and experi-
enced should be sent.

206

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

4. Frequency of Particular Synods.

From the beginning', the Reformed Churches maintained annual
Particular Synods and they would meet more than once a year if such
appeared to be necessary. However, in a few instances prior to the
great Synod of Dort, 1618-19, the government interfered with the
regular summoning of Synods so that the Particular Synods did not
meet for a number of years in some sections of Holland. In fact for
a number of years the Churches were prevented from holding General
Synods. This prevention was due to political conditions and to the
Arminian sympathies and convictions of some governmental authori-
ties who had to give consent at that time.

Ordinarily annual meetings of Particular Synods should be enough.
But extraordinary circumstances may demand extraordinary sessions.
For this reason the article states: “or if need be oftener.”

5. The summoning of Particular Synods, and their order of pro-
cedure.

Regarding the calling together of Synods Article 47 says: “At the
close of both the Particular and the General Synod, some church shall
be empowered to determine with advice of Classis, the time and place
of the next Synod.” The precise time and place of our Synods is
therefore to be determined, according to this article, by the calling or
summoning Church in consultation with its sister Churches through
Classis.

As to the method of procedure, the president of the former Synod —
Particular or General, whichever the case may be — calls the meeting
together at the appointed place and hour, or the Minister (one of the
Ministers appointed by the Consistory for this work) of the summon-
ing Church does this. It is more in keeping with the principles
governing Reformed church polity that the summoning Church open
the sessions of a Synod than that the president of a former Synod
should do this.

How are synodical gatherings to be opened? Usually the leader
calls upon the assembly to sing an appropriate psalm or hymn; then
he reads a passage from the Bible after which he leads in prayer, ask-
ing for God’s guidance for the election of directors and for all the
activities of the Synod. The temporary president then calls for the
credentials. These being examined and found satisfactory the dele-
gates are acknowledged as such and he declares the meeting legally
constituted. Then the assembly proceeds to elect a president, clerk,
etc. The appointment of directors for our Synod always takes place
by ballot. Nominations and nominating addresses are unknown in
these gatherings. Nominations are not necessary inasmuch as the
leaders are sufficiently known to those delegated so that they can vote
intelligently from them. Free balloting safeguards us from certain
dangers which are apt to attend nominations and nominating speeches.

When the directors have been chosen and seated, so Jansen advises*,
the president should first of all present doctrinal matters; then mat-
ters which concern government and discipline; and then various other
matters that may require action. No doubt this is the logical order,
the order of importance.

• Jansen: Xorte Verklaring, etc., p. 212.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

207

ARTICLE XLVIII

(Each Synod shall be at liberty to solicit and hold correspond-
ence with its neighboring S'ynod or Synods in such manner as
they shall judge most conducive to general edification.)

INTER-SYNODICAL CONTACTS

This article, like the preceding and the following article of our
Church Order, apply to Particular Synods. At this writing we have
as yet not organized Particular Synods. They may not be organized
for a long time to come. However, with a view to the possible future
organization of Particular Synods, these articles 47 to 49, as has been
pointed out previously, have been left in our Church Order. And for
the sake of completeness we consider their significance in this com-
mentary.

1. The historical origin and significance of this article.

The Churches of Holland did not feel the need of correspondence
between neighboring Synods as long as the General Synod would meet
regularly. But after the year 1586, for a long period of time, the
General Synod did not meet regularly. This, as has been explained
before, was due to interference of the government. Certain gov-
ernment officials were afraid that the Church would exert and develop
too much power and influence and so they refused to authorize the
gatherings of General Synods. The Churches being closely allied to
the government at that time were helpless. This situation prevented
the Churches from conferring with each other on various questions
and from taking united action. To meet this condition somewhat the
Particular Synods, usually called Provincial Synods in the Nether-
lands, began to send representatives to each other’s meetings. The
first step to initiate what the Church Order in this article calls “cor-
respondence,” was taken in 1593 by the Particular Synod of South
Holland. This Synod sent two of its Ministers to the Particular
Synod of North Holland.

Within a few years the custom became well-nigh general. All the
Particular Synods of the Netherlands were sending representatives to
each other’s meetings except those of Drenthe and Zeeland. The civil
authorities of the latter province prevented the Churches of Zeeland
from establishing these contacts with neighboring Particular Synods.

Now the General Synod of 1618-19— finally permitted and called to-
gether by the civil government because of the Arminian troubles —
regulated this custom of “correspondence” between Particular Synods,
and read Article 48 into the Church Order.

The purpose of this correspondence, as may be noted from what
has just been said, is to promote the necessary unity and cooperation
between the various Churches. Thus the Churches made important
agreements and took united action even while no General Synods were
held. By means of these inter-synodical contacts, for example, the
Churches agreed that students should not be admitted to the Ministry
until after they had finished their course and passed their examina-
tions. Thus the Churches also promoted the translation of the Bible.
Furthermore, they took steps through this method of correspondence
to stop the printing of undesirable books, and by means of this inter-
synodical “correspondence” a new metrical version of the Psalms was
introduced in 1775.

208

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

2. The manner of maintaining inter-synodical contacts.

Article 48 states that: “Each Synod shall be at liberty to solicit and
hold correspondence with its neighboring Synod or Synods.” The term
“hold correspondence” is a literal translation of the Dutch “cor-
respondentie te houden.” But our English word “correspondence” as
used in Article 48 instantly makes us think of communication by
letter or written statements sent by mail. However, the “cor-
respondence” referred to was always carried out by means of repre-
sentatives who were charged to attend the meetings of neighboring
Particular Synods in person.

Clearly it was not the intention of our church fathers of 1618-19
that this correspondence should be carried on by means of letters
sent The term should therefore be given a broad interpretation.

Inter-synodical contacts and conference may be established and
maintained by letters, for the article states very clearly that this
correspondence shall be maintained “in such manner as they shall
judge most conducive to general edification.” But from the very be-
ginning representatives were sent and delegated. Doubtlessly this is
by far the most effective and satisfactory method.

3. Present significance of this article.

The Churches in the Netherlands find that there is no great need
for the maintenance of this correspondence between their various
Particular Synods. Regarding some matters, such as boundary line
questions and united mission activity, the provision of Article 48 is
useful. For the rest, so it is claimed, now that General Synod rgain
meets regularly all matters of general concern can be duly acte-i upon
at the General Synods.

Some of our neighboring Classes send representatives or “fraternal
delegates,” as they are called, to each other’s meetings. This is
doubtlessly a good and beneficial custom and finds justification in this
ruling of the Church Order pertaining to Particular Synods. Per-
haps there should be more correspondence between our various
Classes since we have no Particular Synods and since there is danger
that we drift away from each other. We need to strengthen each
other’s hands and to cooperate in common interests.

In this connection it is well to call to mind that some of our Classes
have their own particular background and history. For example,
Classis Ostfriesland has a German background and for years used
the German language at its meetings. Classis Hackensack, while part
of our denomination, has always spoken the English language and has
an altogether different historical background from the rest of our
denomination which is almost exclusively Dutch in origin. These dif-
ferences make for difference of viewpoint and emphasis.

Then it should also be remembered that our Churches are found
in various localities and surroundings. Some of our Classes are com-
posed of coastal Churches; others of inland Churches. Some are found
in the East; others in the West. Some are largely urban in spirit
and viewpoint others largely rural. Now our surroundings and parti-
cular circumstances of life have a tendency to incline us in certain
directions and mould us in our thinking. Correspondence between our
various Classes would help to maintain our unity and to promote a
greater measure of unity. And by means of correspondence we could
constantly learn from one another.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

209

ARTICLE XLIX

{Each Synod shall delegate some to execute everything or-
dained by Synod both as to what pertains to the Government
and to the respective Classes, resorting under it, and likewise to
supervise together or in smaller member all examinations of fu-
ture Ministers. And, moreover, in all other eventual difficulties
they shall extend help to the Classes in order that proper unity,
order, a/nd soundness of doctrine may be maintained and estab-
lished. Also they shall keep proper record of all their actions
to report thereof to Synod, and if it be demanded, give reasons.
They shall also not be discharged from their service before and
untU Synod itself discharges them.)

SYNODICAL COMMITTEES

Article 49, as well as the two preceding articles, is found in paren-
theses in our Church Order. As has been explained, Articles 47, 48,
and 49 have reference to Particular Synods. Our Churches have up to
this time refrained from organizing Particular Synods and consequent-
ly these three articles are not fully in force among us. We say that
these articles are not fully in force among us. For these rulings
are expressive of certain principles and policies which are in force as
far as our Classes and Synods are concerned. This is particularly true
for Article 49.

1. The nature of synodical committees.

Synodical committees consist of two or more men which have been
delegated by a synod “to execute everything ordained by Synod,” or
to perform a special task which Synod could not itself perform.
Synodical committee-men are therefore deputies of Synod, brethren
that have been delegated to perform a special task in the name of all
the Churches represented by the Synod concerned. They are men, as
the word itself would indicate, to whom a special charge has been
committed. The expression, synodical delegates, would have much in
its favor, but we speak invariably of those who represent the Churches
at Synod as delegates. Consequently to apply the term “Synodical
Delegates” to those who are deputized by a Synod for the performance
of a specific task would make for confusion. The Reformed Churches
in Holland use the term “Synodale Deputaten,” Synodical Deputies.
This term would be unobjectionable in itself, but the word deputy or
deputies is never used for ecclesiastical committees in our land. On
the other hand the term “committee” is often used. And whereas
this word is appropriate, in its implied meaning, we prefer to use the
term Synodical Committees.

The very first regular Synod, Emden, 1571, already decided to ap-
point two Synodical Committees. One, consisting of two members, to
represent the Churches of Holland at the Synod of the Reformed
Churches in France; another, consisting of 16 members, to assist
Mamix of St. Aldegonde in the gathering of historical data relative
to the Reformation.

But Synodical Committees were not mentioned in the Church Order,
by way of special article, until the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, met.
Article 49 was incorporated into the Church Order by this Synod.
Doubtless this Synod did so in order to help regulate an institution
which was filling a real need and a worthy place in the various Parti-

210

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

cular Synods, but which was not altogether without dangers. Hugo
Grotius for one charged that the “Synodical Deputies” were taking the
place of the Synods while these were not in session and that these
Committees were invested with power to rule. At any rate the Synod
of Dort clearly regulated the matter of Synodical Committees, indi-
cating their task and in so doing also limiting their rights and powers.
As the article was originally drafted it applied only to Particular
Synods. The Churches seemingly did not find it necessary at first to
appoint Synodical Committees for the General Synods. But eventually
the article was also applied to General Synods in Holland. In the
year 1905 the Churches of Holland so revised the article that it applies
to the General Synods as well as to the Particular Synods. In the
Church Order of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands Article
49 now reads as follows:

“Each Synod shall deputize some to execute everything ordained by
Synod and to offer their assistance to the Classes in eventual difficul-
ties; as much as possible separate groups of delegates shall be ap-
pointed for the various interests. At least two or three deputies shall
supervise the peremptoir (decisive or final) examinations of future
Ministers. All these deputies shall keep a good record of all their
activities in order to report to Synod and in order to give reasons for
their actions, if such be demanded. They shall also not be discharged
from their service before and until Synod itself discharges them.”

This revision of Article 49 differs in some respect from Article 49 in
our Church Order. In our Church Order Article 49 refers in form
only to Particular Synods. In the Holland Church Order the article
applies to both Particular and General Synods. In our Church Order
Article 49 speaks of one committee charged to do many and various
things. The Holland Church Order now specifies that a separate
Synodical Committee shall be appointed for each matter requiring at-
tention. No doubt the Holland rendering of 1905 is an improvement
over the old rule. Increased labors demand more than one committee.
Moreover, one committee charged to do all that requires attention
and action might assume power and thus foster the evils of
hierarchism.

2. The specific charge and limited authority of synodical committees.

Synodical Committees, likewise Classical Committees, should be
selected with due consideration. Those who are best qualified in the
providence of God should be appointed. Appointment should be by
ballot or by selection of the synodical officers or upon nomination by
a nominating committee.

Those who are appointed to serve on a Synodical Committee (or
Classical Committee) need not be delegates to the body making the
appointment, although sometimes this may be advisable. Neither need
appointees always be officer-bearers. Sometimes the matter at hand
may require the knowledge and experience of experts such as physi-
cians, lawyers, etc. Then these experts should be appointed though
they may not be office-bearers. Needless to say however, only those
who are in hearty accord with our Reformed conceptions should ever
be appointed to serve on committees. Only in exceptional cases and
when need requires would a Synod ask one outside of our own Chris-
tian Reformed Churches to serve on a Synodical Committee.

As far as permanent or standing Synodical Committees are con-
cerned, some of which are called boards, periodic retirements may be
encouraged to counteract the danger of hierarchism, provided the
cause at hand would not be required to suffer. Certain causes need a

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

211

large measure of permanency for efficient and thorough work. So, for
example, a constant shift in the membership of our committees for the
mission work of our Churches and for Calvin College and Seminary,
(Christian Reformed Boards of Missions and Board of Trustees of
Calvin College and Seminary) would be to the detriment of these
causes.

Article 49 as we find it in our Church Order specifies that the one
Synodical Committee which it calls for shall “execute everything or-
dained by Synod both as to what pertains to the government and to
the respective Classes, resorting under it . . .” The 1905 revision of
this article by the Reformed Churches of Holland, as may be noted
from our translation of this revision just given, merely reads: “Each
Synod shall deputize some to execute everything ordained by Synod.”
This is a good change. Why single out matters which concern the
civil government and the Classes? Our reading, dating back to 1618-
19, is too specific and exclusive.

Regarding the provision, “And, moreover, in all other eventual dif-
ficulties they shall extend help to the Classes . . .”, it may be remarked
our Synods do not appoint a committee to assist a Classes in the set-
tlement of any difficulty unless Synod is asked to do so by the Classis
concerned, except it be in answer to an appeal by an individual mem-
ber or Church.

Matters which require the presence and advice of Synodical Com-
mittees are such as are mentioned in Article 11 (Dismissal from active
service), and Article 79 (Deposition from office). The revision of
Holland, 1905, eliminated the motivating phrase, “in order that proper
unity, order, and soundness of doctrine may be maintained and es-
tablished . . .” No doubt these words were dropped in the interest of
brevity and because they are in part a duplication of what we find in
Article 1 of the Church Order. But some matters can bear repetition,
even in a brief Church Order. Moreover these words definitely indicate
the purpose for the appointment of synodical committee-men, and at
the same time this phrase stresses matters which are very vital to
the Churches. For these reasons we favor the retention of these
words.

The examinations of future Ministers which Synodical Delegates
must supervise according to this article are the decisive, final, or
classical examinations. In Holland these decisive examinations are
spoken of as “peremptoire examens”, in distinction from the “praepar-
atoire examens,” by which latter term the preliminary examinations
which merely admit one to candidacy for the ministry, are indicated.

Article 49 states that the Synodical Delegates, often indicated by
the term “deputaten ad examina,” shall supervise these final ex-
aminations “together or in smaller number.” Article 4 requires that
three delegates shall be present. A possible future revision of Article
49 should be changed to harmonize with Article 4. According to the
present reading of Article 49 the presence of one Synodical Delegate
would satisfy the letter of the article. Yet Article 4 calls for three,
which number, if the usage is filling a necessary place, is none too
large. (For further details regarding Synodical Delegates see our
comments on Article 4.)

As to the authority of Synodical Committees, it should be stressed
that they are not superintendents ruling with superior power. Not at
all. They are the servants of the Synod which a^nointed them; they
have no authority in themselves at all. Their authority is limited to
that which the Synod has extended to them. Sometimes they are in-
deed charged to act with Synodical authority, but then only in specific

212

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

cases, clearly definable. Sometimes the Committees are appointed
“with power to act” as circumstances may demand, but as stands to
reason, never upon their own authority, but ever upon the authority
of the Synod which appointed the committee. Instances in which a
Synod or Classis gives a Committee “power to act” should be excep-
tional. As much as possible our assemblies must rule directly and
not indirectly.

What should a Synodical Committee do when facing an emergency
situation? Should the committee act and take important steps and
then ask the next Synod to approve of its actions? No. Now that
we have annual Synods situations which are so acute that they cannot
wait until Synod meets will be very few and far between. But if a
serious situation arises which cannot be settled by Classis, and which
cannot wait until Synod, then let the committee advise a special or
earlier Synod. The following article, Article 50, as revised by the
Synod of 1936, specifies: “If at least a majority of the Classes deem
it necessary that the Synod meet either earlier or later than the regu-
lar time, the local Church charged with convening the Synod shall in
due season determine when and where it is to meet.” (cf. Acts 1936,
p. 39)

Our standing or permanent Committees (Boards) should be very
careful also not to take any important decisions without synodical
authorization previously gained. To make important decisions, though
pressure of circumstances does not require such, and then to ask for
Synodical approval is to be condemned. Synodical Committees must
ever remember that they are but delegates, deputies, committees of
Synod, servants of Synod charged to do that which Synod has dele-
gated or committed to them.

If Synod cannot meet at the appointed time, because of an epidemic,
a war, etc., then the Committees continue to function. They are not
discharged from service before and until Synod discharges them.

If a Synodical Committee member finds that he cannot serve, for in-
stance because of long continued sickness, then he should not resign.
This he cannot do since the body which appointed him is no longer in
session. Only the next Synod can discharge him. He should notify
the other Committee members that he finds it impossible to take an
active part in the work of the Committee. Furthermore he reports
his circumstances and actions to the next Synod, which body will ap-
prove or disapprove of his withdrawal. If a Synod finds that it must
disapprove the withdrawal of any Committee-man the seriousness and
clearness of the case will determine whether and in how far the party
concerned is to be reproved or censured.

ARTICLE L

The General Synod shall ordinarily meet annually. Each
Classis shall delegate two Ministers and two Elders to this
Synod. If at least a majority of the Classes deem it necessary
that the Synod meet either earlier or later than the regular
time, the local Church charged with convening the Synod shall
in due season determine when and where it is to meet.

CONCERNING SYNOD

Article 50 as it now reads is the product of Synod 1936. At this
Synod it was decided to hold annual Synods instead of bi-annual

213

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Synods, and that two Ministers and two Elders should be delegated
from each Classis instead of three Ministers and three Elders from
each Classis, as it had been before 1936.

1. Frequency of synodical gatherings.

Article 50 speaks of “General” Synod. This term is used in view of
the fact that the Church Order recognizes two types of Synods: Par-
ticular and General. As has been noted before, our Churches have not
yet introduced Particular Synods inasmuch as our denomination is too
small to warrant their introduction. But the articles which refer to
Particular Synods have been retained in the revised Church Order
because Particular Synods are a part of every normal Reformed church
organization, and the time may come that we will feel called upon to
introduce them. Thus, in distinction from Particular Synods covered
by Articles 47-49, Article 50 uses the expression “General Synod.”
But inasmuch as we have no Particular Synods we never refer to our
Synods as General Synods, but merely speak of them as Synods.

As noted, Synod of 1936 decided that thenceforth Synod should meet
annually. Synod made this change from bi-annual to annual meetings
in response to an overture from Classis Sioux Center, and upon the
following considerations :

a. This is in accordance with the spirit of the Church Order, which
favors frequent meetings, Articles 37, 41, 47.

b. This will make for shorter meetings of Synod. Our Synods at
present are too long. Delegates complain that it is difficult for
them to be away from their work for so long a time.

c. This will expedite matters in cases of protests and appeals.

d. This will open the way for a reduction in the membership of
our Boards.

e. This will promote contact between the various parts of our
Church, which is in harmony with the spirit of the Church Order.”

The Reformed Churches in Holland, our mother Churches, originally
desired an Annual General Synod, so Jansen informs us.* But dis-
turbed civil conditions and government interferences prevented the
realization of this ideal. Today the Reformed Churches of the low-
lands meet annually through their several Particular Synods but only
tri-annually in General Synod.

Nevertheless, some of the leading authorities in Holland advocate
annual General Synods. Their motives for favoring annual General
Synods harmonize pretty well with the consideration which moved our
Synod of 1936 to introduce Annual Synods.**

It is also worthy of note that the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland
and in our own U. S. A. all meet in General Assembly each year. The
Reformed Churches of Hungary and France likewise have annual Gen-
eral Synods.***

At the Synod of 1936, and again in 1938, overtures to return to bi-
annual Synods were rejected. It is still too early to say at this time
how many actual gains will be harvested by the change from bi-
annual to annual Synods. But this is sure, there is not enough con-
tact between the various sections of our denomination. The fact that

• Jansen: Xorte Verklarlagr, etc., p. 223; cf. also Bouwman, Gter. Xerk-
recht, Vol. II. p. 199.

** cf. Jansen: Xorte Verklarlng, etc., p. 223; Bouwman: G>er. Xerkr., Vol.
II, p. 200, 201; Voetius and Dr. A. Kuiper favored annual Synods. Cf.
Idem — more recently, 1938, Dr. H. H. Kuiper championed the cause of an-
nual Synods in 3>e Heraut.

*•* Bouwman: Oer. Xerkr., Vol. II, p. 199.

214

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

our Churches are scattered over a large geographical area makes it
very difficult for us to know and to help each other properly. Yet we
are one and we need each other. And perhaps for a while to come
Particular Synods will be out of the question. It may therefore be
expected, considering all angles involved, that the test of years will
reveal that the merits of Annual Synods far outweighs their demerits.

2. Delegates to Synod.

Synod of 1936 also decided that two Ministers and two Elders should
from then on represent each Classis at Synod. This decision was
taken in view of the fact that Synod was to meet annually. This re-
duction in the number of delegates would help to reduce the increased
expenses, which the change from bi-annual to annual Synods would oc-
casion, considerably. Moreover, Synod of 1936 was fully aware of
the fact that some Classes were far too large for their own good and
that there was a growing demand for a redistricting of the Classes.
This Synod took steps to adjust that which required adjusting. In
1937 three additional Classes were called into existence. This im-
minent increase in the number of Classes, also helped Synod of 1936
to decide that from thenceforth each Classis should send four dele-
gates instead of six.

How should delegates to Synod be appointed? By ballot. Some
Classes have introduced the so-called rotary system, appointing the
ministerial delegates in alphabetical order. But this is out of harmony
with Article 41 which specifies that “delegates shall be chosen to at-
tend said Synod.” Classes should send their best qualified men. Con-
sequently the Classes should not be hampered by any written or un-
written rule in their selection of delegates to Synod, and far less
should delegates be sent in rotation.

The spring session of Classis Pella (March 22, 1938) overtured the
Synod of 1938 to adopt the following resolution:

“Synod of 1938, having taken note of the fact that more than one
Classis has adopted the practice of delegating its ministerial dele-
gates to Synod according to the rotation plan, hereby issues a word of
serious warning against the dangers involved in this method of dele-
gation to Synod, and declares that this method of delegation is not in
accord with the genius and letter of our Church Order (cf. Art. 41),
and furthermore resolves to urge all the Classes to send its delegates
to Synod only by choice of ballot.”

Synod did not adopt this suggested resolution, but accepted the fol-
lowing recommendation of its Advisory Committee instead: “Synod
declares that there is no warrant in Articles 41 and 50 of the Church
Order for Synod to enjoin upon the Classes a definite method of se-
lecting its delegates to Synod but, with a view to the welfare of the
Churches, it advises against the rotary method of selecting synodical
delegates.”

We believe that the proposed resolution of Classis Pella should
have been adopted rather than the weaker resolution of the Advisory
Committee. We agree with the sentiment expressed in a report to
Classis Pella March, 1938. We quote:

“In the first place we should remember that our synodical gather-
ings are of vital import. The problems which confront our Synods
are very crucial: If the decisions made at our Synods are faulty or
lacking, the very future of our Churches as true Reformed Churches
will suffer. Everything in the last analysis revolves around and de-
pends on our Synods: our Mission work, our Theological School and
College, our discipline, and our doctrinal soundness. Consequently we

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

215

are agreed, Synod should be composed of the most capable and the
best qualified men of every Classis. If the work of our Synods con-
sisted in the main of listening to reports and of approving the same,
it would be different. But our Synods are deliberative gatherings at
which all the major questions of the Churches are considered and
acted upon. This is as it should be. But this also requires our best
talents.

“We do not even believe that we should urge constant change of
delegates to Synod. The ideal would be continuity with change. We
should not have exactly the same set of delegates constantly — of
course not. That might make for hierarchism, and a rule by a few.
But neither should we aim at constant change. Every Synod should
really have a large number of men who have been to previous Synods,
and who know by experience how matters should be handled, and
what the dangers are against which should be guarded. If our Synods
are largely composed of those who have not attended the previous
Synod or previous Synods perhaps, then our synodical committees,
such as the Board of Missions, and the Board of Trustees of Calvin
College and Seminary will be much stronger than Synod itself. For
the members of these committees are appointed for two years and
four years and are often re-elected repeatedly. And it is well. This
makes for strength and efficiency. But then we should not aim at
appointing new man as delegates to Synod constantly, purposefully
passing by well qualified men perchance, simply because they have
been to the previous Synod. To follow such a policy would weaken
Synod. Comparatively speaking our boards would be much stronger
than the body appointing them. And thus by a faulty method of
delegation we would be fostering the evil of “boardism.”

We also quote the following from the report referred to above:

“It is also well to note what leading men in our mother Churches
in Holland have said regarding the matter of synodical delegation. The
late Prof. Bouwman of Kampen declared, (Gereformeerd Kerkrecht,
Vol. II, page 155.) ‘It is not desirable to designate these delegates
by rotation instead of by balloting. For indeed, not all Ministers
and Elders are qualified to consider weighty questions of Church
government. This becomes very evident when very involved problems
regarding the Confession are to be considered, as was the case at the
Synod of Dort. For these reasons it is advisable that the best quali-
fied and most experienced brethren be delegated.’

“And Ds. J. Jansen, another outstanding authority in Church gov-
ernmental matters has the following to say in regard to this matter:
‘Should delegation take place by balloting or by rotation? From the
very outset, free election by ballot was the rule. As a result very
often the same individuals were delegated, because they were the
most capable. Complaints were sometimes made concerning this
fact, for example, at the Synod of 1581, Middelburg, at which Synod
the question was asked, whether it would not be well that the same
Minister should not be delegated twice in succession, in order that
the others might also learn. But the Synod replied that the Consis-
tories, Classes, and Synods should be free to send ‘ “those whom they
deem to be qualified, . . . ” * Ecclesiastical assemblies are no schools
of learning and practice but assemblies for government and discipline,
at which the strongest, men (beste krachten) are needed. And the
danger of hierarchism is not so great that the advantages of a free
election should be sacrificed.’” (Korte Varklaring, etc., p. 225-6.)

God’s Word tells us very clearly that not all office-bearers are tal-

216

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ented alike. Cf. Rom. 12:6-8 and I Cor. 12:4-11. The various Rifts
and qualifications should not be iRnored by us as we choose men to
represent our Churches at Synod. We must be willing” to use the spe-
cial qualifications which the Spirit has given for special work.

3. Convening of Synod.

Article 50 provides for a convening Church. Each previous Synod
designates a Church which is charged to call together the next Synod.
This call to Synod is made by the Consistory of the convening Church
through the official Church papers, three months before the date Synod
is to meet. This Church is also expected to provide all facilities need-
ed for the synodical meetings, to make arrangements for the lodging
of delegates, etc. Expenses incurred by the convening Church are
paid by Synod.

When special circumstances arise it may be advisable for Synod to
meet before the ordinary time, which is the second wednesday in the
month of June. Or it is also possible that circumstances make it ad-
visable for Synod to meet at a later time. General economic distress,
pestilence, or war, for instance, may make it advisable for Synod not
to meet at the regular time. Under these special circumstances.
Article 50, as revised by Synod 1036, provides that Synod may be con-
vened earlier or later than the regular time “if at least a majority of
Classes deem it necessary/’ When at least one half of the total num-
ber of Classes desire an earlier meeting of Synod the convening
CJhurch, according to the present article, determines in due season
when and where Synod is to meet.

4. Procedure at Synod.

Each Synod is called together by the convening Church, the parti-
cular Church designated and appointed by the previous Synod, to call
the next Synod together and to make all the necessary preparations
for it. The regular time for the opening of the sessions of each Synod
is 9:30 a. m., on the second Wednesday of June, each year. The presi-
dent or the vice-president of the previous Synod act" as president pro-
tem until the directors have been chosen. On the evening before
Synod begins to meet a Prayer Service is held under the auspices of
the Consistory of the convening Church. At this service all the dele-
gates are expected to be present and the president or vice-president
of the previous Synod administers the Word and leads in prayer.

Synod of 1934 adopted a revised and elaborated set of “Rules for
Synodical Procedure for the Christian Reformed Church.” As stands
to reason, some rules of procedure are necessary for the orderly and
efficient operation of our smodical gatherings. But we do believe that
rules of procedure which go into great detail are ant to work harm as
as well as good. We feel, for instance, that part VI (Rules of Order)
of the Rules for Synodical Procedure is in many instances too involved
and too technical. To multiply rules and stipulations for our ecclesias-
tical gatherings we deem not only needless but also dangerous. At
our ecclesiastical gatherings we should by all means conduct our busi-
ness according to the essentials of Reformed church polity, most of
all as these essentials of Reformed church polity are expressed in our
Church Order. But for the rest spontaneity and freedom of action
should be promoted. Multiplication of detailed rules and regulations
for ecclesiastical assemblies have a binding tendency and are apt to
turn our gatherings into the direction of mere business meetings,
whereas we should far rather nromote the larger consideration of the

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

217

spiritual interests of the Churches. And for the due consideration of
the spiritual interests of our Churches we need a certain amount of
liberty. Rule upon rule and precept upon precept will have a binding
and checking effect upon our Synods or Classes as deliberative gather-
ings and upon the majority of the delegates to these assemblies. When
rules are multiplied, delegates in many instances will hesitate to take
the floor for fear of being called to order for transgressing some rule.
And let us always remember that there is a distinct difference in
character and aim between a meeting of business directors or a gath-
ering of civil legislators and a gathering of Churches. Parliamentary
rules in large numbers may be in place in the former, but at our
ecclesiastical gatherings they are out of place.

ARTICLE LI

The Missionary Work of the Church is regulated by the Gen-
eral Synod in a Mission Order .

REGULATION OF MISSION WORK

Originally Article 51 did not concern the work of missions but
stipulated that inasmuch as the Churches of the Netherlands — com-
prising both Belgium and the Netherlands of today — used two dif-
ferent languages, namely French and Dutch; therefore two groups of
ecclesiastical gatherings should be maintained. The Dutch speaking
Churches held their own Consistory meetings, classical gatherings, and
Particular Synod. The French speaking Churches of the Southern
Netherlands did likewise. The original Article 61 of the Church Order
of Dort was out of date by the space of centuries when in 1914 our
Synod accepted a new redaction of the Church Order. Consequently it
was eliminated, and in its place the present article regarding mission
work was written.

1. The scope and meaning of the phrase: the missionary work of the
Church.

This article does not refer to all types of mission work undertaken
by our Churches. Our Church Order, true to a fundamental princi-
ple of Reformed church polity, leaves as much liberty to the particular
Churches as is consistent with the welfare of all the Churches. Thus
evangelization work undertaken by any particular Church does not fall
under the regulating authority of the major assemblies. Any Church
that wishes to carry on gospel work in its own community or nearby
communities is at full liberty to do so. The particular Churches have
not agreed to carry on this type of mission work in cooperation with
the other Churches of the denomination.

Neither does Article 51 refer to Home Missions or Church Extension
work. At the time this article was written and adopted, 1914, Home
Mission activity was under the care of the various Classes, and Synod
of 1914 did not intimate that this arrangement should be changed in
view of the adoption of Article 51. Neither has this been contended
later on. For practical reasons Synod of 1936 adopted a new Home
Mission Order which placed the home mission and church extension
work of our Churches under the care and authority of our annual

218

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Synods, but this action was not based upon the provision of Article
51, adopted in 1914.

The term “Missionary Work” in the present article only refers to
mission work among pagan peoples, such as the American Indians, the
Chinese, etc. The correctness of this contention becomes clear to all
when we bear in mind that the article before us is an English trans-
lation, approved of by Synod 1920, of the original Dutch article
adopted in 1914. The original article reads: “De arbeid der kerkelijke
Zending onder de heidenen en Joden wordt door de Generale Synode in
eene Zendings orde geregeld.” The English translation of this article
is not as specific as it should have been. But the Dutch original
clearly tells us what type of Mission work is to be regulated by
Synod according to this article.

The expression “of the Church” in this article is singular in form
but plural in significance. For, as all will grant, the term does not
refer to any particular or local Church. Neither does it refer to the
Church of Christ as that term is used in Article 1 of this Church
Order. It refers to all the Churches of the denomination, thought of
as one united whole.

2. The significance of synodical regulation.

Reformed church polity is a well-balanced system of church govern-
ment. It seeks to do full justice to the inherent rights of the indi-
vidual Churches, but it also recognizes the need of co-operation and it
acknowledges the authority of all the Churches working together
through major assemblies.

Essentially every particular Church has the right to carry on mis-
sion work among pagan peoples. But pagan peoples are as a rule
at a great distance from the Churches and one Church alone simply
cannot carry on this all important and beautiful work. The obstacles
and requirements are so many that individual Churches must cooperate
in order to do .anything at all as it ought to be done. Consequently
our Churches have agreed that their mission work should be reflated
by the synodical gatherings of the Churches. Article 51, let it be clear
does not say that only the denomination as such has the inherent right
to carry on mission work. For practical reasons Article 51 stipulates
that the Churches in general through their Synods will regulate the
mission work of the Churches. The Churches together can buy and
sell, manage and supervise as no Church alone can do. For the pro-
gressive advancement of the work, the systematic occupation of a field,
and the sound, Biblical establishment of Churches, denominational
regulation is absolutely necessary.

But Article 51 does not nullify the rights and duties of particular
Churches. Neither does it nullify what has been clearly stated and
regulated in other articles of the Church Order. Thus, for example,
Article 4 and 5 clearly state that the calling to the ministry pertains
to the particular or local Churches. The right to call and ordain men
to the ministry is nowhere attributed to the major assemblies by the
Church Order. Consequently, no major assembly should call a man to
the ministry. And if, by common agreement, a Classis or Synod
designates a Candidate or Minister for any particular work of the
Gospel ministry, then the actual call should proceed from a particular
Church. And the relationship between the calling Church and the
Minister concerned, in case he accepts the call, should be more than
merely “official.” We should not merely seek to satisfy “the letter of
the law.” The relationship between congregation and Minister should

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 219

ever be real, vital, and active. Sham and mere form in matters spir-
itual and ecclesiastical are killing.

This latter principle, which we have merely used by way of illus-
tration, received expression repeatedly. So f.i. Synod of 1912 decided
that the calling and sending of missionary Ministers is the task of a
local Church. If, however the circumstances demand it, the calling
and sending is to be done by a combination of Churches in a manner
to be determined by these Churches themselves and in comnliance with
synodical and classical decisions.* Thus also Home Missionaries, un-
der the Home Mission Order of 1936, are selected by Synod, but called
by particular Churches.

The revised Mission Order in which the mission work of our
Churches is regulated was adopted by the Synod of 1939, and is known
as: “Mission Order for the Indian and China Missions of the Christian
Reformed Church.”

ARTICLE LII

Inasmuch as different languages are svoken in the Churches ,
the necessary translations shall be made in the ecclesiastical as-
semblies, arid in the publication of recommendations , instructions
and decisions.

DIFFERENT LANGUAGES AND OUR ASSEMBLIES

1. The Dutch original of this article.

In our original Church Order (1618-19) Articles 51 and 52 regulated
a situation which arose from the fact that two languages were used
in the Churches. Some Churches, especially in what is now S. E. Bel-
gium used the French or Walloon language. The rest, located in
present day Netherlands and large sections of northern Belgium, used
the Dutch language. These two groups of Churches, one in faith and
hope and doctrine and one as to the bloody persecutions experienced
in many instances, it was agreed, would meet in separate Consistories,
Classes, and Particular Synods. This matter was regulated in Article
51 by the Synod of Dort. But the Walloon Churches requested that
close contacts should be maintained and that Ministers and Elders of
both groups of Churches, when found in one and the same city, should
meet together once a month to help and advise each other. The Synod
of Dort made provision for these combined Consistory meetings in
Article 52 of the Church Order.

But eventually contact between these two groups of Reformed
Churches was lost. Many of the Belgian Churches were utterly de-
stroyed by the fearful persecutions. Articles 51 and 52 were long
since obsolete. The Reformed Churches in Holland, in their redaction
of the Church Order of 1905, substituted an article regulating the
relationship between the Churches of the Netherlands and the
Churches consisting of Europeans on the Dutch-East Indies for the
antiquated 51st article of the original Church Order. And for the
52nd article these Churches substituted one providing for synodical
regulation of the mission work of the Churches among the pagans of
the Dutch East Indies.

• Schaver’s rendering. Cf. Schaver: Chr. Ref. Church Order, 1937, p. 105.

220

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Our Synod of 1914, however, found that a situation corresponding
somewhat to the bi-lingual situation of the Dutch and Walloon
Churches of former centuries obtained among us. We used both the
Dutch and the English languages. Consequently, Article 52 was made
to read: “Inasmuch as different languages are spoken in the Churches,
the necessary translations shall be made in the ecclesiastical as-
semblies, and in the publication of recommendations, instructions and
decisions.”

2. The significance of this present article.

Sooner than the brethren of 1914 could have surmised, this new
Article 51 is also fast becoming obsolete. The World War accentuated
the use of the English language among us and brought immigration
from Holland almost to a complete standstill. Consenuently, although
many of our people still prefer the Dutch and have real difficulty m
understanding the English language when it concerns ecclesiastical
and spiritual matters, the numbers of these are fast decreasing.
Wherever and whenever it may still be necessary Dutch should be
rendered in English or English in Dutch. That is what the Church
Order demands. Our people are entitled to this courtesy. And the
true welfare of our Churches calls for it.

DOCTRINES, SACRAMENTS AND OTHER CEREMONIES

ARTICLE LIII

The Ministers of the Word of God and likewise the Professors
of Theology ( which also behooves the other Professors and
School Teachers) shall subscribe to the Three Formulas of
Unity , namely , the Belgic Confession of Faith , the Heidelberg
Catechism , and the Cannons of Dordrecht, 1618-19, and the
Ministers of the Word who refuse to do so shall de facto be
sus-pended from their office by the Consistory or C las sis until
they shall have given a full statement, and if they obstinately
persist in refusing, they shall be deposed from their office.

ARTICLE LIV

Likewise the Elders and Deacons shall subscribe to the afore-
said Formulas of Unity.

SIGNING OF FORM OF SUBSCRIPTION BY MINISTERS,
PROFESSORS, ELDERS, AND DEACONS

With the consideration of these two articles we have reached the
third major division of our Church order. Article 1 is introductory.
It briefly indicates the purpose and content of the Church Order.
Articles 2 to 28 concern the offices. Articles 29 to 52 cover matters
regarding ecclesiastical assemblies. Articles 53 to 70 pertain to cer-
tain ceremonies; and Articles 71 to 86 concern censure and admonition.

Instead of considering Articles 53 and 54 successively we take them
together. The subject matter of these two articles is one and the
same. To avoid needless repetition, and in the interest of an orderly
consideration of the subject matter, we follow this procedure.

It should not escape our attention that this present section of our
Church Order places doctrines before Sacraments and ceremonies.
This is logical. No ecclesiastical confederacy, denomination (the
Dutch use the descriptive expression “kerkverband”) can function
properly without agreement regarding doctrines, Sacraments, and li-
turgical activities and ceremonies. And again, unless there be doc-
trinal unity first of all, there can be no unity regarding the Sacra-
ments and ceremonies, for these are ordered and maintained by each
Church or denomination according to doctrinal conception; that is to
say, each Church or denomination maintains the Sacraments and
orders its liturgy and ceremonies according to what it believes to be
the teachings of the Bible regarding these matters. Consequently our
Church Order follows the correct and logical order when in this pres-
ent division it places the matter of doctrines first.

In connection with this it may be said that doctrinal unity forms
the foundation for denominational unity. The confessional writings
of our Churches are the very cornerstones of their existence. When
Calvin be^an the work of reformation in Geneva, Switzerland, one of
the first things that he did was to draft a Confession of Faith. When

221

222

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

the Reformed Churches of France met in Synod for the first time
(1559) they forthwith accepted a common Confession of Faith. When
the Reformed Churches of the Southern Netherlands (present day
Belgium) met in Synod for the first time (Armentieres* 1563) they
likewise instantly accepted a Confession of Faith, namely the one
written by Guido De Bres. And when the Churches of the northern
provinces met in their first Synod (Emden, 1571), they forthwith made
agreement with the Confession adopted obligatory. The Reformed
Churches have felt the need and import of doctrinal purity and unity
from the very beginning of their existence.

1. Historical origin of these articles.

During the first few decades the Reformed Churches of Holland did
not have Forms of Subscription. The Churches simply did not require
any one to sipi his name in testimony of the fact that he was in full
agreement with the Confession of the Churches. But as time prog-
ressed some Classes decided that conditions called for a definite decla-
ration of agreement on the part of the office-bearers. It was especially
in view of the errors of Arminianism which arose long before these
errors were fully considered at the great Synod of Dort that several
Classes and Particular Synods decreed that all Ministers and Profes-
sors should sign their name to the Catechism and the Confession, in
token of their agreement with the same. But as early as 1608 one of
the Classes (Alkmaar) judged that the mere signing of one’s name to
Catechism and Confession was insufficient. This Classis drafted a
Form which contained a declaration of full agreement with the Cate-
chism and the Confession and a promise that the subscriber would
maintain the doctrines therein contained and that he openly reject all
doctrines opposed to the Catechism and the Confession. Other Classes
and Particular Synods modeled Forms of Subscription after this
original one of Classis Alkmaar. Finally, the Synod of Dort, 1618-19,
wrote the Form as it has come down to us almost unchanged. This
Synod, as might be expected, required agreement now not only with
the Catechism and Confession but also with the doctrinal interpreta-
tion and pronouncements as contained in the Five Articles against the
Arminians, known as the Canons of Dort.

2. Fourfold significance of the IForm of Subscription.

The Form of Subscription as it came to us from the Synod of Dort,
1618-19, and which was not substantially changed by any of our
Synods, consists, in the main, of (1) a declaration of agreement; (2)
a promise to teach and to defend; (3) a promise to reject and refute
all errors; (4) a promise to report doubts or changes of mind, and of
subjection to examination for just cause.

First of all the Form of Subscription contains a declaration of
agreement. “We, the undersigned,” so we read “. . . do hereby, sin-
cerely and in good conscience before the Lord, declare by this our sub-
scription that we heartily believe and are persuaded that all the
articles and points of doctrine, contained in the Confession of Cate-
chism of the Reformed Churches, together with the explanation of
some points of the aforesaid doctrine, made by the National Synod of
Dordrecht, 1618-’19, do fully agree with the Word of God.”

The Confession here referred to is the Belgic Confession of Faith,
written in the main by Guido De Bres in the year 1561. The Cate-
chism is the Heidelberg Catechism, nublished in the year 1563 by
Zacharias Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus. It was written at the re-
quest of the Elector, Frederick III of the Palatinate. The latter

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

223

reference is to the Five Articles or Canons of Dort. This declaration
speaks of the “Confession and Catechism of the Reformed Churches.”
The reference is really to the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands.
With these mother Churches of our Churches, this Form originated.
To be technically correct the reading here should be “Confession and
Catechism of the Christian Reformed Churches.” But we are not
advocating a change. The significance of this declaration is clear as
it reads.

In the next place we read: “We promise therefore diligently to teach
and faithfully to defend the aforesaid doctrine, without either directly
or indirectly contradicting the same, by our public preaching or writ-
ing.” The significance of this promise is clear and we pass it by with-
out further comment.

Then follows another promise in the form of a declaration. We
read: “We declare, moreover, that we not only reject all errors that
militate against this doctrine and particularly those which were con-
demned by the above mentioned Synod, but that we are disposed to
refute and contradict these, and to exert ourselves in keeping the
Church free from such errors. And if hereafter any difficulties or
different sentiments respecting the aforesaid doctrines should arise in
our minds, we promise that we will neither publicly nor privately pro-
pose, teach, or defend the same, either by preaching or writing, until
we have first revealed such sentiments to the Consistory, Classis or
Synod, that the same may be there examined, being ready always
cheerfully to submit to the judgment of the Consistory, Classis, or
Synod, under the penalty in case of refusal to be, by that very fact,
suspended from our office.”

Note that the subscriber here promises not only to reject all errors
militating against the doctrine of Holy Writ as confessed by the
Churches but that he also promises active opposition. One who would
merely confess the truth and deny error would not be doing his full
duty. Only he does his full duty and is true to his promise who ac-
tively opposes erroneous conceptions. Our Form of Subscription ex-
pects us to be militant in our Christianity. By signing our names to
it we promise to carry on a defensive and an offensive fight for the
true doctrine of the Church and the Kingdom.

The phrase, “and to exert ourselves in keeping the Church free from
such errors,” is our English rendering for the Dutch original, “en
helpen weren.” In this simple expression the Church is not mentioned.
The phrase as we have translated it would seem to refer most natur-
ally to the organized Church or the denomination to which we belong.
But in view of the Dutch expression, which covers much more than the
limited domain of the organized Church and Churches, it is best to
think in this connection of the Church of Christ on earth, the spiritual
body of Christ manifesting itself in confession and conduct wherever
believers are found. The interpretation would at least harmonize with
the wording of the Dutch original of our Form of Subscription.

Note also that one who entertains serious doubts or who experiences
a change of mind in regard to any points of doctrine here promises
not to advocate these conceptions which are contrary to the accepted
confession, but that he will reveal his sentiments to one of our eccl-
esiastical assemblies. Our Churches do not put their confessional
standards on par with the Bible. Our standards are not infallible and
unchangeable. But they should be accepted as the truth of God by all
office-bearers especially until they have been proven to be in error.
They have been found to be a summary of divine revelation by the
Churches, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, and no one should set

224

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

them aside when he entertains serious doubts as to their correctness,
but rather in the interest of harmony and unity, and for the sake of
the truth of God involved, reveal his doubts to the Churches in order
that the Churches may together look into the matter, revising the
creeds if need be, or else attempt to convince the erring brother con-
cerning his misinterpretation of God’s Word.

Doubts as to the scripturalness of our doctrinal summaries, or con-
victions as to their unscriptural character on any score may be
reported to “the Consistory, Classis, or Synod.” One burdened may,
therefore, go to his Consistory with his difficulties. Or if he so de-
sires he may go to the Classis to which his Church belongs. Or he
may even go directly to Synod to reveal his difficulties. The method
of procedure is left to the subscriber. Ordinarily the burdened brother
will go to his own Consistory first. But if he so desires he may go
directly to the major assemblies.

Furthermore the subscriber promises in this particular declaration
that he will cheerfully submit himself to the conclusions of the Con-
sistory, Classis, or Synod. And if he refuses to submit himself to
the judgment of these bodies he is by that very fact suspended from
office. Formal suspension would have to take place, but by his refusal
to submit himself to the judgment of the Churches the brother con-
cerned has virtually suspended himself. Whether or not deposition
would follow suspension would depend on the question whether or not
the brother concerned persisted in his error or errors.

In the fourth place subscribers to this Form promise: “and further,
if at any time the Consistory, Classis, or Synod, upon sufficient
grounds of suspicion and to preserve the uniformity and purity of
doctrine, may deem it proper to require of us a further explanation of
our sentiments respecting any particular article of the Confession of
Faith, the Catechism, or the explanation of the National Synod, we do
hereby promise to be always willing and ready to comply with such
requisition, under the penalty above mentioned, reserving for our-
selves, however, the right of appeal in case we should believe ourselves
aggrieved by the sentence of the Consistory or the Classis; and until
a decision is made upon such an appeal, we will acquiesce in the deter-
mination and judgment already passed.”

As a burdened subscriber can go with his problem to Consistory,
Classis, or Synod, so also a Consistory, a Classis, or a Synod may
decide to require of a brother falling under their authority a further
explanation concerning his sentiments regarding any article of our
standards. Action of this kind may be taken by a Classis or a Synod
as well as by a Consistory. The major assemblies need not wait for
minor assemblies. As intimated above and as stands to reason, how-
ever, a Consistory can only require a further explanation of this kind
from those office-bearers which are members of its body. And a
Classis can only take action of this kind regarding office-bearers who
belong to one of the Churches of Classis.

Requisitions of this kind may be made only “upon sufficient grounds
of suspicion.” Whether “sufficient grounds of suspicion” are present
or not is decided upon by the assembly in question, not by the brother
whose views are being questioned.

The explanation which any assembly may require must concern his
interpretation or sentiment regarding any article or articles of our
confessional writings. In other words, no assembly has the right to
call a brother “on the carpet” and to require of him that he answer
questions addressed to him at random. The doctrinal standards
adopted are our confessions. Matters not included in these writings

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

225

are left to the judgment of every believer. The basis for any exami-
nation of this kind is therefore always our confessional writings.
And these not merely in general. The examination must concern itself
with definite articles of our standards. This provision is altogether
just and constitutes a safeguard against heresy hunting and abuse.

But in this fourth section of the Form of Subscription the sub-
scriber also promises to comply with the requisition of his Consistory,
Classis, or Synod. If not withstanding this solemn promise any sub-
scriber at any time refuses to answer a summons, he thereby sus-
pends himself from office, and the assembly concerned will so declare.

If the brother in question feels himself aggrieved by the sentence
of his Consistory or Classis, he has the right of appeal, but he prom-
ises to abide by the decision of the assembly concerned in the mean-
time. That is to say, for example, a suspended Minister must recog-
nize the fact of his suspension and not continue to preach, etc. A
suspended party must await the outcome of his appeal and he may
not ignore his suspension. All the privileges of office are held in
abeyance as long as an office-bearer is under suspension. Whether
deposition will follow depends on the question whether or not the
suspension in question is upheld by the body appealed to, or whether
or not this guilty brother clings to his errors in spite of the admoni-
tions extended.

According to the Form before us, an aggrieved party may appeal
from Consistory to Classis, or from Classis to Synod. Might he also
appeal from one Synod to the next? Yes, although indefinite appeal
from Synod to Synod is out of order. An appeal from the sentencing
Synod to the next should be enough.

3. Scope of the Form of Subscription.

From the introductory statement of our Form of Subscription it
becomes clear that professors, Ministers, Elders, and Deacons are
required to sign this Form. We read: “We, the undersigned, Pro-
fessors of the Christian Reformed Church, Ministers of the Gospel,
Elders and Deacons of the Christian Reformed congregation of . . . .”
Articles 53 and 54, now under consideration, mention the same office-
bearers. The Form merely mentions professors, but Article 53 speci-
fies: “Professors of Theology.” The professors of our Calvin College
are not covered by the phrase, “Professors of the Christian Reformed
Church,” of the Form of Subscription. Article 53 of the Church Order
makes this clear. Moreover, the Form of Subscription presupposes
throughout that those who subscribe to it are office-bearers. It speaks
of suspension from office. But our college professors are not office-
bearers, at least not by virtue of their professorship, although they
may happen to be Ministers, Elders or Deacons of the Church to
which they belong.

The Reformed Churches of Holland have three different forms of
subscription. They all date back to years prior to the great Synod
of Dort, although they were all revised and approved by this Synod.
The first of these forms is for Ministers of the Gospel; the second
for Professors of Theology; the third for Rectors and Schoolmasters.
The Holland Churches do not have a general Form for Elders and
Deacons, although Article 54 of the present Dutch Church Order
requires that these office-bearers subscribe to the three Forms of
Unity, just as our 54th Article requires such. This matter is left to
the Classes in Holland. The Classes can use the Forms adopted for
Ministers of the Gospel with some minor adaptations, or they may
draw up a special form of subscription as has been done by some

226

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Classes in years of yore. (Cf. Acts, Particular Synod of Zeeland,
1610, and Acts, Particular Synod of South Holland, 1622.) Our Form
of Subscription has been written in such a way that all the office-
bearers mentioned in Articles 53 and 54 of the Church Order can
sign it. This unification makes for simplicity and convenience, but it
does not in every instance make for clarity and co-ordination. For
example, from a mere reading of our Form of Subscription one not
fully informed might be led to think that our Elders and Deacons
are permitted to preach, for Elders and Deacons, as well as Ministers
and professors of theology, promise in our Form not to preach things
contrary to the three Forms of Unity.

Article 54 of the Church Order of the Reformed Churches of Hol-
land also provides that those who are declared Candidates by the
Classes, shall sign their names to the Standards of the Churches.
This is no doubt a good rule. As a matter of safety it might be well
that we would require of all those who are licensed to exhort in our
Churches that they first sign an appropriate form of subscription.

Candidates for the ministry who have accepted a call and have
passed their final or decisive examination, their classical examination
of admittance to the ministry, should sign the Form of Subscription
at the time of their examination before receiving their document of
admittance.

It is very necessary that we take this signing of the Form of Sub-
scription very seriously. It should never become a mere form, a tra-
ditional performance. And the subscriber should know what he is
signing. Those, for example, who are chosen to office for the first
time should be notified ahead of time that they will be expected to
sign this document in due season, informing them that if they have
any scruples, after carefully reading the Form, that then it is their
duty to notify the Consistory of their difficulty before their ordina-
tion or installation takes place.

In times of laxity and doctrinal indifference or in days when under-
currents of error seem to be present, the Churches should be very
careful not to revise their Form of Subscription to their own hurt. A
classic example of the need of vigilance on this score is the change
which was introduced into the Form of Subscription by the Churches
of Holland in 1816. A slight change was introduced into the old form
of subscription drafted by the great Synod of Dort (1618-19). Ac-
cording to the old form prospective Ministers by signing declared that
they believed that the Three Forms of Unity agreed altogether with
the Word of God. According to the new reading of 1816, these pros-
pective Ministers declared that they accepted the doctrines contained
in the Three Forms of Unity, which agreed with the holy Word of
God. The phrase in question was made to read: “. . . de leer, welke
overeenkomstig Gods heilig Woord in de aangenomen Formulieren
van Eenigheid is vervat, ter goeder trouw aan te nemen en hartelyk
te gelooven.”

This sounds good enough but it left a loop-hole. The question soon
arose whether the “overeenkomstig” had the significance of omdat,
(quia) “because,” or voor zoover (quatenus) “in as far.” Those who
wanted to be loyal to the Word of God and Reformed faith held
that the latter interpretation was possible and also intended by the
leaders of the revision group. Some denied this charge vigorously.
But in 1835 one of their leaders admitted that the change had been
sponsored and made so that a candidate could sign the Form of Sub-
scription even if he did not fully agree with the Standards of the

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

227

Churches. * He who signs this document in Holland today merely
declares that he will be loyal to the Three Forms of Unity in as far
as these agree with the Word of God. The result is that even Uni-
tarians and Communists can become Ministers of the Hervormde
Kerk in the Netherlands. The Gereformeerde Kerken van Nederland,
the purified and reorganized Reformed Churches of Holland, as might
be expected, immediately readopted the unequivocal Form of Subscrip-
tion of Dort, 1618-19. Heretics cannot consistently sign this Form.

Article 53 contains the following parenthetic statements: “(which
also behooves the other Professors and School Teachers).”

Originally this statement referred to non-theological professors
teaching in various schools and universities in the Netherlands, and
to all school masters, teaching and training the children in various
local schools throughout the land. These schools were owned by the
government, but managed and supervised by the Churches. (See our
discussion of Article 21.)

This parenthetic statement was purposely retained in our Church
Order. Our Churches by this statement commit themselves in favor
of requiring all those that teach in our schools, Christian Day
Schools, Christian High Schools, and our colleges or college, to sign
a Form of Subscription. We do not know in how far this provision
of the Church Order is practiced, but none will deny that all those
that receive the privilege of teaching the youth of our Churches
should be in hearty accord with the doctrine of our Churches and that
this practice should be revived in as far as it has not been maintained.

ARTICLE LV.

To ward off false doctrines and errors that multiply exceed-
ingly through heretical writings , the Ministers and Elders shall
use the means of teaching , of refutation, or warning, and of
admonition, as well as in the Ministry of the Word as in Chris-
tian teaching and family-visiting.

HERETICAL WRITINGS

Originally this 55th article concerned the censure of books. The
article provided that no one, being of the Reformed religion, should
undertake to publish a book or a pamphlet dealing with a religious
matter unless he had first received permission and approval of the
Ministers of his Classes, or of the Ministers of his Particular Synod,
or of the theological professors. These professors could not give ap-
proval without the foreknowledge of the Classis in which they resided.
First of all we shall therefore say a few words regarding the censure
of books as originally provided for in this article. Next we shall
consider the article as it now reads.

1. The censure of books.

The censuring of writings and books and particularly the prohibi-
tion of the distribution of certain writings, is of old standing. The
Roman government forbade the distribution of certain writings which
it had deemed harmful. And when Constantine the Great became an

* Christlyke Encyclopaedia IV, p. 653.

228

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

adherent and defender of Christianity he promulgated strong edicts
against anti-Christian writings. Other Emperors did the same.*
Throughout the middle ages the Church of Rome maintained an au-
thoritative position regarding this matter. Thus in 1415 Johannes
Huss, the Bohemian forerunner to the Reformation and martyr for
the cause of Christ, was condemned to die and his books were for-
bidden and ordered to be burned. Especially when the discovery of
the printing press made the multiplication of books so much easier,
did Rome seek to exercise jurisdiction on this point.

When the Reformers began to write and when printing presses
everywhere began to publish the writings of the Reformation leaders
and their translations of the Bible into the language of the people,
Rome became very active in its censuring of these productions. It
soon published its “Index”, a list of forbidden books. It martyred
and persecuted those who helped to publish and to distribute this
forbidden literature.

When the Reformation gained headway and power the Churches
naturally faced the problem regarding erroneous and heretical writ-
ings. They faced the question of a free or fully controlled press. The
Reformed Churches of Holland, true to the ancient example and the
age-old practice of Rome and the general conceptions of their day,
decided that no one of the Reformed Churches should write and pub-
lish merely upon his own initiative and according to his own mind.
They decided that none should publish a book or writing without the
approval of the Ministers of his Classis or Particular Synod or the
professors of theology. In fact, the first Synod (Emden, 1571) ruled
that no one regardless of the fact whether he belonged to one of the
Reformed Churches or not, should be permitted to publish a book
without proper authorization. Other Synods confirmed this same gen-
eral ruling. The Churches seemingly hoped that the government
would become wholly Reformed and would eventually take the same
stand. This hope was never fully realized, and in 1586 the restriction
of Article 55 was limited to those who professed to be Reformed and
over whom the Churches therefore had supervision and control. The
great Synod of Dort wrote the 55th article as we have indicated it in
the introductory statement to our comments on this article.

But in actual practice Article 55 had little significance. It was
soon found that the censuring of books, in the sense of permitting
none but approved books to be printed and circulated, was imprac-
ticable. In the first place, the government did not cooperate suffi-
ciently. In fact, in December, 1618, the government made a law of
its own which was less drastic than what the Churches desired.
Furthermore, the major assemblies are not always in session and could
not possibly pass on all the writings submitted directly. They would
have to appoint committees and thus foster hierarchism. Again, non-
Reformed writers were not bound, whereas Reformed writers were
bound. They could not publish without proper approval. This worked
as an undesirable check upon the initiative of Reformed writers. And
again, the rigid maintenance of Article 55 was after all no guarantee
that no objectionable books would ever be published. Thus Fred. Van
Leenhof published his Heaven on Earth in 1703 with proper approval,
while the Churches had to depose him in 1708 because of heresies
advocated in said book. On the other hand, worthy books were some-
times rejected and kept off the press, because they did not meet with
the approval of the men examining them. Moreover, as both Bouw-

• Bouwman: Ger. Kerkpecht, II, 1934, p. 587.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

229

man and Jansen say, “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in
secret is pleasant.” (Prov. 9:17.) Official disapproval of books often
aroused curiosity and whetted the appetite of the public so that re-
fusal of approval often made good advertisement and promoted the
reading of such publications if they were published in spite of the
opinion of those who reviewed the book.*

In view of the situation briefly indicated above the Synod of
Utrecht, Netherlands, 1905, re-wrote Article 55 and rendered it as it
now reads. Our Synod of 1914 adopted this reading.

2. The present reading and provisions of Article 55.

Article 55 of our Church Order as it now reads, clearly indicates
that we believe that erroneous doctrines and presentations advocated
in undesirable books and writings should be counteracted, not by pro-
hibitions, but by teachings, refutations, warnings and admonitions.
Moral and spiritual persuasions we now prefer above legalistic sup-
pressions.

The first means of counteracting the influence exerted by danger-
ous reading material, mentioned in the article is the Ministry of the
Word. Jansen says: “By elken tekst moet de waarheid zuiver ver-
kondigd, de dwaling weerlegd, voor ketterijen gewaarschuwd en tot
getrouwheid vermaand worden.” With each text the truth must be
proclaimed in its purity, errors must be refuted, heresies must be
warned against, and there must be an admonition to loyalty. No doubt
there is room and call for these four elements in the preaching of
the Word, again and again. Our day and age calls for positive in-
struction in the truth of God. But our people should also have their
attention called to erroneous conceptions which run counter to God’s
truth and which undermine God’s truth, and very often in a very
subtle fashion. Error must be unmasked and clearly indicated. Posi-
tive exposition of God’s Word comes first and it should ever occupy
the chief places in our sermons. But opposition to error and miscon-
ception may not be lacking. This will include serious warning and
earnest admonition. Especially do our young people need all these
elements mentioned in Article 55. They are entitled to definite, clear-
cut messages which will help them against numberless dangers by
which they are constantly surrounded.

The Christian teaching mentioned in this article refers to the
Catechism class, inasmuch as the Catechism class is the regular
means of instruction in our Churches. But our Sunday Schools and
our Christian Schools and Colleges also have a very definite task here.
Our schools have wonderful opportunities to render a noble service
to our youth on this score.

And when the Consistory calls on the families of its Church year
by year to consider the spiritual condition and welfare of the family,
then the office-bearers also have a very choice opportunity to carry
out the provisions of this article. Let the visitors not forget their
charge on this point. Let them faithfully warn against the pernicious
influence of undesirable literature and let them urge the reading of
wholesome material, the Church papers, and other Reformed periodi-
cals, as well as trustworthy books.

If a member of one of our Churches would write and distribute a
heretical book, would he become justly subject to discipline? He
certainly would. And although it is hard to lay down iron-bound

• For a fuller discussion of this matter cf. Bouwman, “De Boekencen-
suur,“ Oer. Kerkr., II, pp. 584-593.

230

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

rules, if a member of our Churches should print and sell literature
which is heretical and anti-Biblical he would also become the object
of discipline. No one may wilfully and consciously help to break
down the Kingdom of God. No one may help to poison the minds
of our youth. He who does, though it be to him merely a business
proposition, is sinning and should be admonished and dealt with ac-
cordingly.

The book reviews which our trustworthy papers supply can also
render a great service in this field.

ARTICLE LVI.

The Covenant of God shall be sealed unto the children of
Christians by Baptism , as soon as the administration thereof
is feasible, in the public assembly when the Word of God is
preached .

BAPTISM OF CHILDREN

The following nine articles concern the administration of the Sac-
raments. * Articles 56 to 60 regulate the administration of Baptism,
and Articles 61 to 64 the administration of the Lord's Supper. The
following matters regarding Baptism are covered in the next five
articles: Article 56: Baptism of Children; Article 67: Baptismal
Sponsors; Article 58: Form of Baptism; Article 59: Baptism of
Adults; Article 60: Baptismal Records. The present article therefore
regulates the matter of infant baptism.

1. Which children are to be baptized?

Article 56 stipulates that children of Christians shall be baptized.
Originally the Wezelian Convention (1568) merely spoke of baptism
that should be administered “to the children.” This wording was also
adopted by the Particular Synod of Dort, 1574. But these gatherings
did not mean to say that all children should be baptized regardless of
their parentage and the faith of their parents. The Synod of Dort,
1578, made this clear by adopting the following wording: “to the
children of Christians.” The Synod of Middelburg further amended
the designation by rendering the phrase: “to the children of baptized
Christians.” But the Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586, again dropped
the adjective “baptized”, perhaps because all who were Christians
were naturally also baptized. Today we still have the indication,
“unto the children of Christians,” as it was already accepted in 1578.**

The expression, “unto the children of Christians” is indeed rather
broad. But the Church Order should not go into all kinds of details.
A Church Order should indicate leading principles. Moreover, the
brevity of the stipulation also harmonizes with the brevity of the
heading of our Form for the Baptism of Infants.

Children of Christians are children of the covenant and as such

• We are capitalizing the words Sacrament, Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper, for the following reasons: 1. The Church Order does so. 2. Usage
favors the capitalization of the term, Lord’s Supper. Consistancy requires
that Baptism and Sacrament be capitalized likewise. 3. The great signi-
ficance of the Sacraments warrants their capitalization.

** cf. Jansen: Xorte Verklarlng, etc., 1923, p. 247; or Kerkellik Hand-
boekje, Zalsman, 1882.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

231

are included in the Church of God. (Gen. 3:15; 17:7; Acts 2:39; Eph.
6:1; I Cor. 7:14b; Mark 10:14b; I Joh. 2:13c.)

The general principle having been established a number of prac-
tical questions soon presented themselves. From the very outset it be-
came the rule to baptize only children of parents who belonged to the
Reformed Churches. But some parents, who were in sympathy with
the Reformation and at heart at odds with the Roman Church, never-
theless failed to make a final break with Rome because they lacked
the courage of faith and clarity of conviction. Officially they were
still Roman Catholics. Sometimes such parents requested a Reformed
Church to baptize their child. The first Synod (Emden, 1571) replied
to a question regarding such cases by referring to the opinion of the
theologians of Geneva, Ministers and professors. The rule should be,
so Beza had written, that only children of Church members should
receive baptism. But in abnormal times, as when the Church was in
process of being reorganized, or when severe persecutions were
raging, exceptions to this rule might be made. Children of weak and
fearful parents might be baptized under these circumstances, though
not without certain stipulations and promises. But as will be realized,
that ruling was by way of concession for the period of transition.

Should children of parents who are under discipline be baptized?
Such children are entitled to baptism because such parents are still
within the Church. However, such parents, since their very Christian-
ity is in question, are not in position to promise before God and the
Church that they will train their children in harmony with the doc-
trine of God[s Word. In other words, such parents under censure
are not in position to take upon themselves the baptismal vows. They
cannot pledge to give their child a training which harmonizes with
the significance of baptism. Consequently the baptism of children of
such parents is postponed until the censure can be lifted. Unless said
parents should secure the grandparents or other close relatives or
friends to act as sponsors. The child of censured parents is assumed
to be a child of the covenant and therefore entitled to Baptism. But
Baptism without being interpreted and understood becomes an empty
form. Yet this Sacrament is too sacred to be reduced to an empty
form. Consequently the Church and its office-bearers demand that the
parents shall be qualified to explain to the child, as it grows up, the
meaning of its Baptism, and that these parents shall also promise to
do so. Now if for any reason parents of a child entitled to Baptism
are disqualified to take upon themselves these solemn promises, then,
if the child is to be baptized, witnesses must be found who promise
to take the place of the parents to the best of their ability. If such
sponsors cannot be secured the child should not be baptized until he
is old enough to judge for himself, and to request Baptism upon pro-
fession of faith. If in any cases the parents are opposed to the Bap-
tism of their child, and if it becomes clear that the proposed sponsors
will in all likelihood not be able to instruct the child properly be-
cause of the ill-will of the parents, then again matters should not be
forced or urged but Baptism should wait. It goes without saying
that if only one of the parents is under censure the other may pro-
ceed with the Baptism of the child. Children bom to excommunicated
parents are not entitled to Baptism. Such parents can not be regarded
as members of God’s covenant and of the Church of Christ. This does
not mean that their children may not be in the covenant. God often
restores children or children’s children of covenant-breakers unto Him-
self. But inasmuch as we have no definite assurance in God’s Word
regarding children of such unfaithful and unbelieving parents, and

232

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

inasmuch as the instruction of such children by competent sponsors
would be much hampered at best, it is better not to baptize children
bom to excommunicated parents. However, if children of unfaithful,
unbelieving or ex-communicated parents make their permanent homes,
say with their God-fearing grandparents who shall be able to explain
the meaning of Baptism to them and who shall be in position to give
them a good Christian training, then such children need not be barred
from Baptism; the parties concerned being willing to serve as spon-
sors, taking upon them the baptismal vows.

Children of ex-communicated parents who have received Baptism
before their parents' ex-communication are to be instructed by Chris-
tian relatives and by the Church, and their Baptism, given to them
in God's providence, is not to be held null and void until such children,
when come to years of discretion, show by word and deed that they
have no part in the covenant of God and His Church. If only one of
the parents is excommunicated the other has the right to have child-
ren baptized. This is sufficiently clear from I Cor. 7:14. “For the un-
believing husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife
is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now
are they holy.”

Another question which often arose is this: May illegitimate child-
ren, children bom out of wedlock, be baptized ? Supposing an unmar-
ried woman gives birth to a child whose father is a non-Christian,
may the mother of said child have it baptized? If she, being a pro-
fessing member of the Church, repents sincerely of her sin, then she
may have her child baptized. The child is a covenant child and the
mother is competent to assume the baptismal promises. If the mother
is a member-by-Baptism only, then she should first make profession
of faith and confession of her specific sin. If she reveals true repent-
ance concerning her special transgression, but if her faith be not yet
clear enough for her to make profession of faith, then her repentance
regarding her sin against the Seventh Commandment should be an-
nounced to the Church, and competent sponsors, say the grandparents,
should assume the baptismal promises for her. If an illegitimate
parent reveals no repentance of the sin committed and should even
live a life of indifference and Godlessness, but place the child under
the control of God-fearing relatives, then these relatives may apply
for Baptism and act as sponsors at the time of Baptism.* The child
belongs to the seed of the covenant and the relatives are competent
to assume the baptismal vows.

May adopted children be baptized? If adopted children are of be-
lieving parentage the answer is yes. And the Reformed Churches
have always been lenient regarding this question. If it can be estab-
lished that the child concerned is of covenant lineage, though this
lineage goes back three or more generations, then, as a rule, Baptism
has been permitted. But regarding the Baptism of children legally
adopted by believing parents but born of pagans or unbelievers, there
has been a difference of opinion. The great Synod of Dort already
faced this question. Specifically the question faced was this:
Whether children born of pagan parents (in East India, the Dutch
possessions) but adopted to be members of the household of believers,
might receive Christian Baptism. The Synod judged that these chil-
dren should not be baptized until they in due season should make
profession of faith. Prof. Wm. Heyns, in his Handbook for Elders

• This position is also that of Voetius (Pol. Scol., 11653) cf. Jansen:
Xorte Verklarlng, etc., p. 250.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

233

and Deacons judges that those who do not favor the Baptism of
adopted children of non-Christian birth cannot appeal to the Synod
of Dort. Says he: “It (the question) came from East India and con-
cerned such children of heathen natives as had been received usually
after they had reached a certain age, in Christian families, but, as
was expressly stated, received in such a manner that they were not
legally adopted, that they were members of the family as slaves, not
as children, and that occasionally they were removed again from these
families and fell back among the heathen.” * Prof. Heyns bases this
statement upon information given to the Synod of Dort by the dele-
gates from North Holland in the 18th session of Synod. But seem-
ingly Prof. Heyns has overlooked the exact wording of the decision
of the Synod regarding this matter, taken in the 19th session. First
the Synod decided unanimously that those who were old enough to
receive some instruction should not be baptized until they had made
profession of their faith. Then we read: “Concerning children of
pagans which, because of their youth, or because they cannot under-
stand the language (of the Dutch in East Indian homes), have not
been able to receive instruction from the Christians, although they
may have been incorporated into the homes of Christians by adoption,
it was also judged by majority vote that these should not be baptized
before they have come to such years that they can be instructed in
the first principles of the Christian Religion according to the measure
of their understanding, and after such has also actually taken
place.” ** (Translation and bold face ours. Authors.) To be sure, the
Synod of Dort declared itself against the Baptism of adopted children
of non-Christian origin.

In the year 1910 our own Synod left the matter of Baptism or non-
Baptism of adopted children of non-Christian parentage to the judg-
ment of each Consistory. *** ****

The Synod 1930 answered the question, “whether children who were
not bom of believing parents, but who were adopted by believers,
may be baptized,” in the affirmative.

Against decisions of 1930 a number of protests appeared at the
Synod of 1932. This Synod appointed a strong Committee to recon-
sider this whole matter thoroughly. This Committee reported four
years later, in 1936. The report of this Committee was not by any
means unanimous. It was three-fold. Four members delivered a ma-
jority report. Three members a minority report. And two members
offered a third report. These reports which discuss the problems in-
volved very thoroughly may all be found in the Agenda, for Synod
1936, Part I. After some consideration Synod of 1936 decided: “That
there is not sufficient ground to reverse the decision of the Synod of
1930 upholding the permissibility of the baptism of children born
outside of the covenant circle and adopted by believing parents.”

Furthermore this Synod decided: “That this 1930 decision in no
way justifies the molestation of anyone who, whether as church mem-
ber or in the specific capacity of office-bearer, may have conscientious
scruples against the administration of the Sacrament of baptism to
such children.”***

It appears to us that one’s position on this question regarding the
permissibility or non-permissibility of the Baptism of adopted children

* Heyns: Idem, p. 194. A _ . ...

*• Acta, ofte Handelingen des Nationalen Synodi tot Dordrecht. Anno
1618, ende 1619. 1621, p. 61.

••• cf. Acts, 1910, Art. 67.

**** Acts, 1930, pp. 64, 56.

234

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

of non-Christian birth, is largely determined by one’s covenant view.
If one holds that the covenant of grace is essentially only a covenan-
tal form for the promise of salvation for those that believe, then in
all likelihood he will favor the Baptism of all adopted children. If,
on the other hand, one believes that the covenant of grace is an actual
bond or league of life-relationship between God and His people in
Christ Jesus as their federal head, then one will in all likelihood
judge against the Baptism of adopted children of non-Christian birth.

We may also add that it is our conviction that the language of
Article 34 of our Confession, and of Lord’s Days 26 and 27 of our
Heidelberg Catechism, as well as the language employed in our Form
of Baptism, is against the practice of baptizing children of non-
Christian birth. These writings all assume that the subject of Bap-
tism is “in Christ”, as His people’s redeemer and second Adam. We
find no warrant in Scripture for assuming that children born of un-
believing, Godless parents are “in Christ”, simply because they are
legally adopted by believing parents. According to our standards and
our Form of Baptism, Baptism is not merely a sign and a seal upon
a conditional promise of God, but a sign and a seal of saving grace
in Christ. Those who are baptized, to say no more, are assumed to
be federally, legally in Christ our second Adam. (Note well, our
standards and Forms do not contend that every child bom of believ-
ing parents is actually federally in Christ for there are exceptions
to every rule, and far less that every child is actually, subjectively
in possession of all the benefits of Christ’s obedience and death; re-
generation, etc.)

Upon what basis does the meaningful assumption referred to above
rest? Upon the assurances of God regarding the (natural) children
of believers. It cannot be assumed that children of pagans and non-
Christians are (federally, representatively, covenantally) in Christ
until they by their confession and walk of life manifest themselves
as Christians. Consequently the present writers believe it is better
to postpone the Baptism of adopted children in question until they
manifest themselves as Christians. But we would urge all office-
bearers to study the reports delivered at the Synod of 1936 and then
let each come to a conscientious decision as to what he believes to be
proper. The injunction of God to Abraham (Gen. 17) to circumcise
also the children of his slaves, is a strong argument in favor of the
administration of Baptism to the children in question. But those who
do not favor the Baptism of these children reply and assume with
the Synod of Dort that Abraham did not circumcise all children of
pagans, but only those whose parents had been circumcised and
taught to believe on the true God.

It may also be said that the recent or present day leaders of the
Reformed Churches of the Netherlands are, as far as we know, all
opposed to the practice of baptizing children of non-Christian par-
entage, though adopted into Christian homes.* This is most likely
due to the fact that the question concerning the Baptism of adopted
children, born of Godless parents, is at heart a question regarding
the covenant. The stricter covenant conception, which holds that the
covenant is in essence a bond of life-relationship between God and
His people in Christ Jesus, is the prevalent conception in the Nether-
land Churches of our forebears.

Finally the question presents itself whether or not children of

* cf. Bouwman: Ger. Xerkrecht, II, 1934, pp. 284-300. In these pages
the author gives lengthy consideration to our decision of 1930.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 235

members-by-Baptism may be baptized. Children of such parents are
entitled to Baptism but their own parents are not in position to take
upon themselves the baptismal vows. Consequently the only way in
which these children can be baptized is through the acceptance of
competent sponsors of whom wre have already spoken in the discus-
sion of this article, and of whom we shall speak again in the con-
sideration of Article 57.

2. By whom Baptism is to be administered.

In the final analysis, Christ Himself is the administrator of bap-
tism. John said to Him, “I have need to be baptized of Thee.” (Matt.
3:14.) We also read that Jesus tarried in the land of Judea and
baptized. (John 3:22.) And, “Jesus was making and baptizing more
disciples than John.” (John 4:1.) But the next verse tells us plainly
that Jesus delegated the actual administration of Baptism to His
disciples, for we read: “although Jesus himself baptized not, but His
disciples.” (John 4:2.) Later on the Apostles were charged with this
task (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:38).

The preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacra-
ments logically belong together. The Sacraments are seals upon the
testimony of the Word. For this reason Scripture unites the two,
and from the very beginning of Christian Church history they have
been administered by the same class of office-bearers. The Apostles
preached and baptized. Their logical and God-ordained successors
as preachers are the Ministers of the Gospel. Consequently the Min-
isters of the Gospel and they only are the rightful administrators of
Baptism today. For this reason Article 3 of this Church Order reads:
“No one, though he be a Professor of Theology, Elder or Deacon,
shall be permitted to enter upon the Ministry of the Word and the
Sacraments without having been lawfully called thereunto.” And Ar-
ticle 30 of our Confession declares that, “there must be Ministers or
pastors to preach the Word of God and to administer the Sacraments.”

Baptism administered by private parties has never been held valid,
even though such parties should have acted upon instructions given
by a Consistory, inasmuch as private parties are not called and or-
dained for this task. Neither was Baptism administered during the
early years of the Reformation by assistants to the Ministers, such
as catechetical instructors, sick-visitors, etc., held valid. However,
the Synod of Dort, 1578, held that if an Elder, upon the authority of
a Consistory or Church, had administered Baptism, that then such a
Baptism was not to be repeated, inasmuch as such an Elder in a way
had a call for this administration. But the Synod also decided that
this practice should not be followed by other Churches or Consistories.

For reasons already indicated, students and Candidates are not
permitted to Baptize, nor such as have entered upon a secular voca-
tion and who are therefore no longer in the ministry.

The Reformation Churches soon faced the question of the validity
of Baptism administered in the Roman Church. Synod of Emden,
1571, held that those who had been regularly baptized in the Roman
Church did not have to be baptized once again, fearing that the
Roman Baptism was of no value. But our fathers doubtlessly felt
that although the Roman Church was filled with error, that yet it
was a Church of Christ in essence, and that therefore its Baptisms
were valid. If therefore Baptism was administered by an authorized
priest, with water and in the name of the Triune God, then re-Baptism
did not take place. Even the Baptism of “vagabond priests,” con-
stantly traveling from place to place, was held to be valid (Synod of

236

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Middelburg, 1581) inasmuch as these were officially called. But the
Baptism of monks was considered to be invalid for they have no
charge to Baptize. Even “emergency Baptisms” administered by mid-
wives, doctors, etc., were usually held to be valid because the Roman
Church charges individuals to Baptize a child which is about to die.
Whether the Reformation Churches were justified in acknowledging
even these latter classes of Baptisms is indeed a question.

The Baptism of anabaptists was recognized, if Baptism had taken
place in the name of the Triune God. This was not always the case,
because some anabaptists entertained erroneous conceptions regard-
ing the doctrine of the trinity. However, Baptism administered by
the Socinians was rejected because they had broken with the essence
of Christianity. We assume the same attitude toward the Baptism
administered by Unitarians, Mormons, etc., inasmuch as these have
broken with the Christian religion.

The early Reformed Churches also faced the question, what should
be done by parents living in parts where there was no Reformed
Church? Some had to flee to Germany during the days of persecution
and lived for a time among the Lutherans. What of children bom
to these people? Should they remain unbaptized? The Reformed
people residing at Frankfort also faced this question because the
government of Frankfort forbade the Reformed religion in 1562.
Many Reformed theologians held that none of these parents should
turn to the Roman Church for Baptism but that the Lutheran Church
should be asked to baptize their children, provided the Ministers were
willing to omit certain Lutheran ceremonies such as exorcisms (ban-
ishing of evil spirits), etc. Calvin also judged that if Reformed
parents found it impossible to move within the pale of a Reformed
Church that then they should ask the Lutheran Church to baptize,
with the understanding, however, that the Roman remnants of a
superstitious character would be omitted, and that the parents retain
their Reformed convictions and that the child would be reared in the
Reformed faith.*

In general it may be said that the Reformed Churches have always
recognized the validity of Baptisms administered by other groups if
Baptism was administered 1) according to the institution of Christ
(the rightful element, water, not wanting), 2) in a community or
association of believers confessing the Trinity, which association is
therefore in principle a Church of Christ, 3) by one duly authorized
to administer this Sacrament by a Church or Christian association.

3. When Baptism should be administered.

When, or, how soon after birth should a child be baptized? Our
Church Order, in the present article, answers: “as soon as the ad-
ministration thereof is feasible.” Baptism should take place as soon
as possible. Individuals and families, concerning whose baptism Holy
Writ makes mention, received this Sacrament as soon as possible,
right after their confession of faith in Christ. (Acts 2:41: 16:14,15;
16:33.)

Respect for and appreciation of the significance of Baptism should
also tell us that this blessed Sacrament should be administered to our
children as soon as possible. Baptism is a sign and seal of the wash-
ing away of the sins of our children. It is indeed a token of great
value and honor. Now if the President of the United States wanted
to give your child a token of great value and honor, you would not

• Jansen: Xorta Verklaringr, etc., 1923, p. 254.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

237

let days and weeks pass by needlessly before claiming said token.
You would call for the token at the appointed place at your earliest
convenience.

The Roman Catholic Church maintains what the Dutch call “vroeg-
doop,” early Baptism. That is to say, in the Roman Church children
were baptized as soon as possible in the literal sense, before the
mother’s restoration, the child being in some cases but one or two
days old. This practice of Rome rests on her belief that Baptism
imparts regeneration, and that if an infant dies unbaptized it cannot
be saved. Its soul, if it dies prior to Baptism, goes neither to heaven
nor hell, but to a special place indicated by the Latin term “limbus
infantum.” In this abode of infants the souls of these children are
ever doomed to continue in an intermediate state, experiencing neither
joy nor sorrow without ever being able to escape. Small wonder that
Rome maintains the custom of baptizing without delay and has also
invented emergency Baptisms, sometimes even administered to the
chilti before its birth.

The Reformation Churches also maintained the practice of bap-
tizing their children without delay. At the first service to be held
after the birth of the child Baptism would take place. As a rule
many Baptisms would take place at the regular week-day services as
well as on Sunday. Guido de Bres, chief author of our Confession,
so we read, had his first-born baptized the day after its birth. And
this practice was not limited to Holland. In the colonial period of
our own country, our God-fearing pioneers had the same custom.
Benj. Franklin, for example, was baptized on the very first Sunday
after his birth.

Needless to say the Reformation Churches practiced baptism with-
out delay for entirely different reasons than did the Roman Church.
The Reformed Churches in Holland today to a large extent favor and
practice “vroeg-doop.” The arguments in favor of this practice are,
in the main, the following: Children of believers are bom in the
covenant, and should, therefore, receive the token of the covenant
as soon as possible. Furthermore, the children of Israel had to wait
until the 8th day before they might receive the sign and seal of the
covenant for their children. Seven days, pointing to sin and impurity,
had to be fulfilled before circumcision could take place. But for New
Testament believers this barricade has been removed. Christ has
died and fulfilled also this ceremonial injunction. We need not wait
and it would be ingratitude if we should wait. Again it is said, New
Testament examples of Baptisms teach us in every case that those
who were entitled to Baptism were baptized without delay.

In our Christian Reformed Churches it has become the general cus-
tom to wait with Baptism until the mother is restored so that she
together with the father may present the child for Baptism. Argu-
ments used to defend this custom are as follows: The covenant is not
established by Baptism, and therefore its administration need not be
rushed; the child is a covenant child, apart from Baptism. Further-
more, the mother has a most vital part in bringing the child into
being and therefore she should not be excluded from the great privi-
lege of presenting the child for which she suffered and sacrified so
much for Baptism together with the father. It is true that the father
is the head of the family and that he represents the mother at the
time of the child’s Baptism, whether the mother be present or absent,
yet it should not be overlooked that the mother has a personal interest
and responsibility as well as a communal responsibility as wife.
Moreover, it is said, the mother will have a very vital part in rearing

238

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

the child, and therefore if possible, she should personally pledge to
train the child in the aforesaid doctrine, before God and His Church.
It is also agreed that inasmuch as the Bible gives us no injunction
on this score, the Churches are not bound to any definite time and
parents are therefore free to wait.

Personally we feel that it is well for both husband and wife,
father and mother, to present their child for Baptism. We do not
believe that a Scriptural principle is being violated when a father
determines to wait for the mother’s restoration. But we would warn
against undue delay. Churches all around us have fallen into the
evil habit of postponing the Baptism of infants for weeks and months.
Many wait for Easter day. This is unBiblical. This is a custom born
of shallowness, extemalism, and ingratitude. Let us baptize “as soon
as feasible.” Let us not wait for better clothes, relatives, the home
Minister, other fathers and mothers, etc. But let us baptize just as
soon as the mother can be present in God’s house. And if special cir-
cumstances compel her to remain at home beyond the ordinary num-
ber of days, then let the father proceed to have the child baptized
without delay. If the blessed significance of Baptism may stand out
prominently in our minds and hearts we shall be kept from evils and
errors which threaten us also on this score.

The Sacraments are signs and seals of the Word. Logically, there-
fore, the preaching of the Word should precede the administration
of Baptism. For practical reasons, however, we as a rule baptize
during the first part of the service and not after the sermon. There
is no objection to this since the Form for the Baptism of Infants gives
a doctrinal exposition of the significance of Baptism.

4. Baptism to be administered “in the public assembly when the
Word of God is preached.”

Originally some parents were still affected by the erroneous con-
ceptions of Rome regarding Baptism. If a young infant of such par-
ents fell sick soon after birth, before Baptism in the Church service
could take place, they might urgently ask to have the child baptized
at home. The Wezelian Convention, 1568, advised to grant such re-
quests for the time being, but held that such infants should be baptized
in the presence of some believers who could be present. The Particu-
lar Synod of Dort 1574, however, already decided that henceforth
children should be baptized only in a regular Church service.

The Synod of Dort, 1618-19, ruled that Baptism might be admin-
istered at home to children and adults who were sick and still un-
baptized if circumstances were very urgent, and then only with the
knowledge and in the presence of the Consistory; this Synod also
permitted the baptizing of condemned criminals awaiting execution
in jails, but only upon advice of the delegates of Classis. But the
Synod may have feared ill effects of these concessions. At least it
was decided not to publish these decisions, if the Acts were to be
published. It wanted to maintain Article 56 of its Church Order.*

The article specifies not merely that the administration of Baptism
shall take place in the public assembly, condemning private bap-
tismals as Rome practiced them in keeping with its erroneous
baptismal doctrines, but the article also requires that Baptism shall
be administered “when the Word of God is preached.” Baptism in
and by itself is meaningless. The form as such brings no benefit.

Kortef'v«ktorii^, ^°258 1618"19' Post'Acta’ Session 163:1 and Jansen:

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 239

It is a sign and seal of Christ’s saving grace, of the washing away
of the recipient’s sin in the blood of Christ.

Superstition must be avoided. Ignorance must be fought. Conse-
quently, our fathers ordained through their assemblies that hence-
forth the Word and the seal upon the Word should not be separated.

ARTICLE LVII.

The Ministers shall do their utmost to the end that the father
present his child for Baptism .

PRESENTATION FOR BAPTISM BY FATHERS

1. The original reading and significance of this article.

Our Synod of 1914 abbreviated the original reading of this article
considerably. We merely retained the first part of Article 57 as it
was found in the Church Order of Dort and we erased the latter part.
The full article used to read as follows:

The Ministers shall do their utmost and work to the end that
the father present his child for Baptism. And in those Congre-
gations in which besides the fathers, sponsors or witnesses are
taken at Baptism, (which custom, being in itself permissible, shall
not be changed lightly) it is required that such sponsors or wit-
nesses be taken who hold that pure doctrine and who are pious
in their conduct.

The Church of Rome held that the natural parents were really unfit
to present their child for Baptism inasmuch as children are born in
a sinful state by reason of the sinfulness of the parents. Consequently
God-fathers and God-mothers, sponsors, should be found who could
act as spiritual fathers and mothers for the children. Rome con-
trasted nature and grace. The men and Churches of the Reformation
said: The antithesis is not between nature and grace, but between sin
and grace. Nature is of God and there is no essential conflict between
nature and grace. Marriage and procreation are perfectly normal in-
stitutions and are not to be classified as things of a lower order and
as necessary evils. And though every parent must confess all his
sins committed in every relationship of life, parents should not be
set aside and ruled out of court at the Baptism of their God-given
offspring. Theirs is the privilege and duty to present their children
for Baptism.

But for years and centuries children had been presented for Bap-
tism by sponsors. And many who joined the Reformation movement
and left the Church of Rome did not instantly see through all the
errors of Rome. In some Churches the office-bearers still permitted
sponsors. The father would remain in the background and the spon-
sors would occupy the foreground. Now Article 57 ruled that Minis-
ters everywhere endeavor to remedy this wrong state of affairs. The
father should himself have his child baptized, not the sponsors. But
it was added: In those Churches in which sponsors were still employed,
these should occupy a place next to the father. In other words, the
father had to occupy his God-ordained place as father. And sponsors
were only permitted to occupy a secondary place at baptismal services.

240

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

The Churches should see to it that only worthy sponsors were chosen.
That is to say, only sponsors who were sound in doctrine and God-
fearing in their conduct were to be chosen.

As will be noted the original article also stipulated that inasmuch
as there were no serious objections against sponsors who would occupy
a secondary place at a child’s Baptism, the custom should not be
changed lightly. The Churches did not care to cause needless dis-
turbance over this question. The matter was one of minor import.
As long as parents were not crowded out of their rightful place and
wrongfully relieved of solemn duties and obligations toward their
children, the Churches would not interfere with this custom. They
doubtless saw some good in the custom. Well qualified sponsors who
promised to help the parents to instruct their children in the right
doctrine could do a great deal of good.

2. The significance of the article as it now reads.

From the foregoing it has become plain that our Article 57 is es-
sentially an article which provides for parental presentation of child-
ren for Baptism over against the presentation of children for Baptism
by sponsors or witnesses.

The article does not mean to say that the fathers shall hold the
children in their arms at the moment of Baptism rather than the
mothers. The fathers are mentioned in this article because they are
in the first place the responsible parties, being heads of the family by
God’s own appointment. Furthermore, the Reformed Churches gener-
ally, as our discussion of Article 56 has revealed, baptized their
children early, without delay, before the mother had fully recovered.
(See comments on former article.) Consequently, the mothers, as a
general rule, were not present at the Baptism of their children. In
keeping with this situation Article 57 does not mention the mothers.
Article 57 does not ignore the mothers. They are included in the
fathers here mentioned, but as a matter of principle and practice took
no direct part in the Baptism of their little ones.

Although Article 57 does not mean to say that the fathers, rather
than the mothers, should hold their children at the moment of Bap-
tism, it is generally agreed that there is some symbolism in the pres-
entation of the child at the baptismal font by the father. He is the
God-appointed head, bearing first responsibility for the child’s train-
ing and education. But for the rest it is immaterial, whether the
father or the mother presents the child at Baptism. Under special
circumstances a relative or the baby’s nurse will most likely hold the
baby at the time of Baptism. This does not decrease one whit from
the real significance of the Sacrament.

Inasmuch as the custom of employing sponsors next to the parents
had not been practiced for many decades, our redaction of the Church
Order (1914) left this whole clause regarding sponsors out of the
article. The Reformed Churches of the Netherlands in their redaction
of 1905 maintained this clause. In view of the fact that sponsors are
sometimes necessary, as when both parents have died, or when neither
the father nor the mother is competent to assume the baptismal vows,
(see comments, Act 56) it might have been well that we also had
retained the stricken provision concerning sponsors. At any rate, the
provision found in Article 57 prior to 1914, that sponsors should be
sound in doctrine and pious in their conduct, is a very essential one.
And whenever Consistories make provisions for baptismal sponsors
this rule should still be their standard.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 241

ARTICLE LVIII.

In the ceremony of Baptism, both of children and of adults,
the Minister shaU use the respective fomns drawn up for the
administration of this Sacrament.

FORMS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM

We come now to a consideration of Article 58 which specifies that
the Forms for Baptism shall be used at every baptismal service.
These forms are two in number, the first pertaining to children to be
baptized, and the second pertaining to adults to be baptized.

1. The purpose of sacramental forms.

As has been said before, the Sacraments have no significance in
and by themselves. They convey no grace apart from the Spirit and
should be understood in order to be fruitful of much good. The Sac-
raments possess no magical power. They are dependent upon the
Word and the Spirit. Consequently the correct understanding of the
significance of the Sacraments is very important. For this reason the
meaning of Baptism should be briefly explained at each administra-
tion of Baptism. The explanation should not be left to the Minister
administering the Sacrament. Errors might thus creep in. One-
sidedness would surely result in many instances. For the safety of
the Churches it is well to have Forms which are brief and to the
point and well balanced, approved and accepted by all the Churches
through their official assemblies. Our fathers instantly felt the need
of Forms for the administration of the Sacraments, the more so since
Rome had erred grievously on the score of the Sacraments. All kinds
of misconceptions and superstitious notions had found a harboring
place in the Churches through erroneous conceptions and usages re-
garding the Sacraments.

2. The origin of the baptismal ‘Forms.

Concerning our Form for the Baptism of Infants it may be noted
that it was already in use before the first Synod of Reformed
Churches of the Netherlands could meet. At the Wezelian Conven-
tion, 1568, the Churches were admonished to use the questions found
in the baptismal Form verbally. This convention had reference to the
Form written by Petrus Datheen in conjunction with Van der Heyden.
Datheen had translated the Heidelberg Catechism from German into
Dutch, 1563. He also prepared a new metrical version of the psalms
and wrote certain liturgical documents for the Churches. In the year
1566 these were published. But when Datheen and Van der Heyden
wrote their baptismal Form they modeled their draft after other
baptismal forms already existing. Forms used in the preparation of
our Form are those of Calvin, a Lasco, Micron, and Olevianus.

The Particular Synod of Dort, 1574, found that many Churches were
not using the Forms of Datheen inasmuch as they were too lengthy.
Many Ministers were using statements, explanations, and suggestions
of their own. Synod deemed this a very dangerous procedure, and
abbreviated the existing form. All Ministers were now expected to
use the Form.

Several other Synods concerned themselves with the wording of
the Form but no Synod adopted its own official text. The addition of
1611, published in Middelburg by Schilders, was reviewed by the
Synod of Dort, but the revisions of this Synod were never published.

242

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Not until Dr. F. L. Rutgers and his assistants, Dr. H. Bavinck and
Dr. A. Kuyper, in the year 1897 published the 1611 edition, amended
in accordance with the decisions taken at the great Synod of Dort,
1618-19, were the improvements of this Synod incorporated into the
Form. At the Synod of Arnhem, 1902, the Reformed Churches of the
Netherlands recommended this 1897 edition of the Form for the time
being.

Regarding our synodically approved edition of the Form for Bap-
tism we read as follows in the Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Re-
formed Church, appended pages, p. 72: “Until now our Church has
availed itself of a translation of these forms (forms for the admin-
istration of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper) which was originally
prepared in the Netherlands for the use of Churches composed of
English and Scottish refugees, and later revised and adopted by the
Reformed Church in America. This translation, slightly revised and
corrected, was adopted by our Synod of 1912 for the use of our Eng-
lish speaking churches. A more thorough revision of these forms is
now published for the first time in this volume. . . . The committee
for the preparation of this Psalter Hymnal took upon itself the re-
vision of the translation of the other forms mentioned above, (forms
for Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) and the Synod of 1934 adopted
this revision, which offers a more faithful translation of the original
in more idiomatic English.”

The Reformed Churches, of the Netherlands have revised their
liturgical forms, including the Form for the Baptism of Infants, at
their Synod of 1930. A comparison of the revised text of our bap-
tismal Form with the revised text of the Holland Churches reveals
the fact that our Committee has taken close note of revisions made
by the Holland Synod of 1930. This is as it should be. Reformed
Churches very closely related in background, doctrine and liturgy
should benefit freely from each other’s findings and actions. But it
would have been well for us to have recognized the work of the Hol-
land Churches adopted in 1930, if only by the mere mention of this
revision in the report of the committee.

The Form of Baptism for Adults dates back to the Synod of Dort,
1618-19. This Synod drafted this form after the Form for the Baptism
of Infants. The doctrinal exposition of Baptism in this Form there-
fore harmonizes with that of the other Form. And to this a special
section concerning Baptism for adults with appropriate questions has
been added. At the time when the Synod of Dort met there were al-
ready two Forms for adult Baptism in existence. In 1603 the Churches
of North and South Holland had drafted and accepted a form at their
Particular Synods. The Churches of Friesland and Gelderland also
used this form. And in the year 1610 the Particular Synod of Vere
ordered a Form for the Baptism of adults to be drafted. These two
forms differed in this respect that the former, after the expository
section taken from the Form for the Baptism of Infants immediately
proceeds with the prayer and questions, whereas the Form of Zeeland
incorporates a brief exposition of the significance of adult Baptism,
between the explanatory section taken from the Form for Infants, and
the prayer and questions. Synod of Dort in the main accepted the
redaction of the Churches of Zeeland, but the Synod of Dort modeled
the five questions of our Form for adult Baptism after the questions
Of North and South Holland.

The Holland Synod of Arnhem, 1930, made some necessary changes
in this Form just as it had done in the Form for infant Baptism. Our
Synod of 1934 did the same. However, the Holland redaction now re-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

243

quires the candidate for Baptism to respond to the five questions with
but one affirmative reply. We have retained the five-fold response,
the applicant for Baptism being required to respond with a solemn
“I do” to every question individually. Because of the solemnity and
import of the occasion we prefer the old five-fold response. Although
it must be granted that if we require a separate response to each
question asked of an adult about to be baptized, there can be no good
reason for not asking parents or sponsors to answer each question
asked of them separately. Consistency would require such. And the
necessary need for emphasis would seem to plead for a separated re-
sponse to all three questions of the Form for infant Baptism.

This is not the place for an exposition of our Form for Baptism,
although it will be agreed by all who are able to judge that there is
a real and urgent need for an exposition of these and other forms.
Those who are able to read Dutch will find a very thorough and
helpful commentary of these forms in Dr. B. Wielenga’s Ons Doops-
fomulier. Dr. Bouwman in his Ger. Kerkrecht, Vol II, pp. 244-264
gives explanatory notes that merit much appreciation.

ARTICLE LIX.

Adults are through Baptism incorporated into the Christian
Church, and are accepted as members of the Church, and are
therefore obliged also to partake of the Lord's Supper, which
they shall promise to do at their Baptism.

ADULT BAPTISM AND THE LORD’S SUPPER

In the Reformed Churches infant Baptism is the rule and adult
Baptism the exception. The vast majority of members of a Reformed
Church will have been incorporated into the Church organization
through infant Baptism. Nevertheless, many are also added to the
Churches by adult Baptism. The present article concerns the Baptism
of adults.

1. The age limit for infant Baptism.

Again and again the question occurs: What is the age limit for
infant Baptism? From the very days of the Reformation the age of
14 years was regarded as the limit for infant or child Baptism. In
other words if a boy or girl were 15 years or older, Baptism was not
administered except upon personal profession of faith. However, no
general and binding rule has ever been accepted. Some individuals
mature much earlier than others. Some youths at the age of 12 or 13
have a greater measure of maturity than others at 14 or 15. Each
case must therefore be judged by itself. The general principle which
should guide is this: Only such children should be received into the
Church through infant Baptism who have not yet come to years of
discretion, years of understanding. Thus, for example, if a youth of
13 or 14 years appears to be developed beyond the average child of
that age, able to grasp the fundamentals of Christianity, able to
choose for himself and actually taking a stand of his own regarding
the questions of sin and grace and related matters, then such a child
should not be baptized upon application of its parents or sponsors,
but only upon his own request and confession. At no time, seemingly,

244

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

have the Reformed Churches baptized youths older than 14 years with
infant Baptism, although children younger than 15 have been received
through adult Baptism.

This practice harmonizes well with the fact that, as Jansen points
out,* the years of youth leading to full manhood or womanhood are
generally agreed to divide themselves into three equal periods of
seven years. The age of childhood comprising the years 1 to 7, the
years of youth (boys and girls), ages 8 to 14, and the years of young
manhood and young womanhood, the years 15 to 21. Regarding those
belonging to the first group, 1-7, all agreed that these were as far
as their years were concerned, rightful subjects of infant Baptism.
Those of the last period, 15-21, were by common consent, admitted to
the Church only through adult Baptism. But regarding those belong-
ing to the second class, 8-14, there was some difference of opinion.
Especially regarding youth of 12, 13, and 14 who were advanced be-
yond the average of their age. But the practice of the Churches has
been that these cases were dealt with according to providential cir-
cumstances, as has been indicated above. However, it should be added
that such older children were often questioned before their parents
were permitted to present them for Baptism. Questions regarding
the Ten Commandments, the Twelve Articles of Faith, and the Lord’s
Prayer would be asked. Also questions touching the child’s attitude
toward God and religion. If an older youth appeared to be unbeliev-
ing, immoral, or hateful toward Christianity, infant Baptism would
not be administered, even though the child was only 14 years or
younger.** ,

2. Significance of the statement: “Adults are through Baptism incor-
porated into the Christian Church, and are accepted as members of
the Church.”

The significance of this statement is that those who have come to
years of discretion and comparative independence can only be admitted
to Church membership by profession of faith and Baptism adminis-
tered upon this profession. The term “Christian Church” as used in
Article 59, does not stand on par with the expression “Church of
Christ” as used in Article 1. The expression “Church of Christ” is
used to indicate the body of believers living in a certain region or
country. It does not as a rule refer to these believers as they are
organized into a Church or Churches. (See comments. Article 1)
The term “Christian Church” in the present article, however, refers to
a specific congregation or organized Church. The opening provisions
of Article 59 therefore simply specifies that adults who stand out-
side of the organized Churches can only be incorporated into a local or
particular Church upon confession and Baptism, and that thus they
are admitted to full membership rights in the Church which so re-
ceives them. A literal translation of Article 59 on this score would
make this interpretation very evident. Literally we read: “Adults are
to be incorporated into the Christian congregation by Baptism, and
are thus to be accepted as members of the congregations.” He who
has been granted adult Baptism thereby receives all the privileges of
Church membership. He stands on par with those who were baptized
in infancy and who in later years made profession of their faith.

• Jansen: Xorte Verklarlng, etc.. 1923, p. 26.

•• I>r. F. L. Rutgers: Kerkelyke Adviesen, II, 1921, p. 69.

245

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

3. The obligation of those that are baptized as adults to partake of
the Lord s Supper.

Prior to the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, there seems to have been some
uncertainty on this score. Some unbaptized individuals applied for
Baptism perhaps because Church-membership was required to hold
certain positions in civil government. For a time there was a very
close relationship between Church and State and not to be a member
of a Reformed Church would often spell disadvantage. Others re-
quested Baptism because they desired to marry a young man or woman
of the Reformed Churches and no ecclesiastical confirmation of mar-
riage would be granted if one of the parties was outside of the
Church. Then again, some youths were admitted to baptism at an
early age and these sometimes hesitated to go to the Lord’s table
forthwith.

Some Churches had been too easy and slack regarding this matter.
The question reached the Synod of Dort from more than one Par-
ticular Synod, and the Synod of Dort answered by writing Article 59
as we still have it today, into the Church Order. Henceforth, there-
fore, only those who were competent to celebrate the Lord’s death at
His table would be admitted to Baptism. The confession and walk of
those who requested Baptism should be such that the Consistories
could admit them to the Lord’s table. And those requesting and re-
ceiving Baptism should realize that they were expected to come to the
Lord’s Table. If they would not promise to partake of the Lord’s
Supper regularly, they were not to be admitted to Baptism.

This provision is sound. The two Sacraments signify and seal the
same thing. They belong together. An adult who is not competent
to celebrate the Lord’s Supper is also incompetent to receive Baptism.
And one who is competent to receive Baptism is also competent to
celebrate Holy Communion.

In some of our Christian Reformed Churches a number of years
ago individuals would be admitted to full membership privileges by
making “profession of the truth.” The Dutch phrases used were:
“Belydenis der leer,” or, “Belydenis der waarheid.” This was con-
sidered to be profession of faith, made with the distinct understanding
that the person making the profession, simply made an objective
profession. He declared that he believed the Bible according to the
Reformed conception but he made no appropriation of Christianity for
himself. He did not profess to be a child of God, one saved from sin.
And it was therefore distinctly understood that he would not be
expected to come to Holy Communion. Many of these, we may believe,
were at heart sincere children of God, although they did not dare to
say so themselves. These were the victims of an unscriptural and un-
reformed emphasis upon subjective “experiences.” These “experiences”
of others were raised as standards and tests for true Christianity, al-
though in many instances these experiences were of a very doubtful
character and often contrary to God’s Word. But many of these who
made “professions of the truth” were not God-fearing at heart. They
were external and indifferent.

The result of this practice of permitting people to make “profession
of the truth” was that many in our Churches who had made profes-
sion of faith never went to the Lord’s Table. There are still a few of
this class left in some of our Churches. Needless to say that this
whole type of profession of faith is contrary to the stipulation of
Article 59. If those who are admitted to adult Baptism are expected
to come to the Lord’s Table, then surely those likewise who make pro-
fession of faith should celebrate our Lord’s death regularly.

246

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

In some Churches of the Reformed faith, both here and in Europe,
large numbers of those who make profession of faith never go to the
Lord’s Supper. This is a sickly, unbiblical situation and should be
counteracted with tender regard for the convictions of sincere be-
lievers, but also with persistency and firmness.

To be sure, we should keep balance and judge discriminately here.
We should not merely urge all who have made profession of faith to
celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Some members of the Church may be
victimized by rationalism and unbelief to such an extent that they
are not fit to approach the Lord’s Table. They should first, by God’s
grace, overcome their unbelief regarding the very fundamentals of
Christianity. And if one lives in spiritual indifference, he should like-
wise overcome this spiritual indifference before partaking of the
Lord’s Supper. And if one be remiss in his Christian conduct he
should first repent of his sin and forsake his sin before coming to
Holy Communion. One who would continue in his rationalistic indif-
ference or unchristian conduct would soon become an object of dis-
cipline. Persistency in sin requires that all membership rights be
temporarily withdrawn from the guilty one, and ultimately these sins
would require excommunication. Article 59 in no way means to say
that God’s children are always fit to go to the Lord’s Table and that
they must promise never to absent themselves. We must warn
against a light and vain and unworthy approach unto the Lord’s
Table. And we must urge believers who are worthy, to come with joy
and gratitude, warning them against the evil of unwarranted ab-
stinence.

In keeping with the provisions of Article 59, the adult who is about
to be baptized promises, in answer to the fourth question of the Form
for the Baptism of Adults, that he will persevere “not only in the
hearing of the divine Word, but also in the use of the Holy Supper.”

ARTICLE LX

The names of those Baptized , together with those of the
parents, and likewise the date of birth and baptism , shall be
recorded.

RECORD OF BAPTISMS

Article 60 provides for the registration of all baptized children. We
shall first endeavor to answer the question why records should be
kept, and secondly we shall note what specifically should be included
in this registration.

1. Why records should be kept.

The Wezelian Convention already judged that proper registration
of those baptized was necessary, in the first place for the sake of the
Church and in the second place for the civil community. At present
the civil governments all require that the birth of infants be properly
recorded. Years ago this was not the case. So, for instance, in the
Netherlands civil registration of births, names of parents, etc., began
in 1811.* Previous to this time the government depended on the Church

• Jansen: Xorte Verklarlng, etc., 1923, p. 269.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

247

records if and when verification of year of birth or parentage was
necessary. The relationship between Church and State being very
close in post-Reformation days, the Churches adopted Article 60, not
only for their own sake, but also for the sake of the government.

In answer to the question why we keep baptismal records the
obvious reply is simply: In order that each Church may know who
have been baptized. Or, to state it differently: In order that each
Church may know which children and young people belong to it by
virtue of their Baptism and so that each Consistory may know which
children and young people fall under its special care and jurisdiction.
And in case Baptism has taken place upon presentation of witnesses
or sponsors that the Church and Consistory may know who the in-
dividuals are that promised to instruct the children in matters regard-
ing the doctrine and significance of Baptism.

Furthermore record is also kept in order that the Church may know
when Baptism was administered. Those that come to years of dis-
cretion and do not repent of sin and do not seek to come to a hearty
appreciation of salvation by grace and all its implications should be
admonished. And in this connection, office-bearers should know the
age of non-professing members.

Again, it often happens that children leave one congregation for
another, together with their parents. The Baptism of such children
together with the time of Baptism should be certified to the Church
with which this removing family desires to affiliate. The same is true
for young people who remove to other communities and come under
the care and jurisdiction of another Church. Their Baptism, and the
time of their Baptism, should be certified to their new Church. Unless
a good record is kept proper certification cannot take place.

2. That which should be recorded.

In the first place as the article clearly requires and as stands to
reason, “the names of those baptized" must be recorded. In the second
place the names of the parents are to be recorded. Proper identifica-
tion requires that the names of parents be recorded as well as the
names of the children baptized. But this is not the only reason. Par-
ents at the time of Baptism assumed some very solemn and meaning-
ful vows. They make important promises before God and His Church
regarding the training of their children. They assume certain weighty
and definite obligations. The names of the parents are therefore also
recorded in token of the fact that these parents have assumed these
obligations. This secondary significance of the recording of the names
of the parents becomes evident from the fact that the article used to
read: “The names of those baptized, together with those of the par-
ents and sponsors . . . shall be recorded." The names of these sponsors
had to be recorded inasmuch as they had assumed solemn obligations
toward the children concerned and not because of relationship or for
reasons of identification. In our redaction of the Church Order (1914)
we dropped the words “en getuigen” (and sponsors). The Churches of
Holland have retained them. Most likely our Synod of 1914 deemed
this provision antiquated and needless inasmuch as in our day only
the parents assume the baptismal obligations and the whole institu-
tion of sponsorships in connection with infant Baptism is out of date
and out of use. But, as we have noted in our consideration of Article
57, there still is room for baptismal sponsors in our Churches. When-
ever children are of the “seed of the Church" and of God’s covenant
and therefore entitled to Baptism but the parents are dead or incom-
petent to assume the baptismal vows, sponsors must take the place

248

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

of these parents. Consequently it might have been better if our Synod
of 1914 had also retained the words “and sponsors,” or at least had
given the following reading to this article: “The names of those bap-
tized together with those of the parents or sponsors . . . shall be re-
corded.” But even though sponsors are no longer mentioned in our
60th article, whenever sponsors present a child for Baptism their
names must be recorded in the baptismal book next to those which
indicate the child’s parentage.

The date of Baptism is to be recorded also. This is done for rea-
sons already indicated above and for reasons of completeness. The
article also requires that the date of birth be recorded. This part of
the provision is new. It was not found in the article prior to 1914,
and is not yet found in the redaction of the Netherland Churches. It
is well to know the exact age of a baptized child or youth, and this
slight addition of 1914 is therefore a good one. Perhaps we incor-
porated it also because for secular affairs our members are often
required to certify their exact age, and the civil records of birth
are very incomplete. Consequently the Church officials are asked
again and again to furnish a testimony as to some one’s date of birth.

The records should be kept with accuracy and neatness. To facili-
tate both accuracy and neatness every Church should have a good
record book to begin with. There are loose-leaf binders on the market
which are durable and neat and which help the recorder to keep the
record up-to-date and accurate. Some prefer the card index system
and much can doubtless be said in favor of this system. The main
point however is not this or that particular system, although it counts,
but punctuality and care.

Are parents free to select from all kinds of names as they select a
given name for their child? And must the Church baptize a child by
whatever name parents may have selected? The naming of a child
has rightly always been left to the parents. It is their privilege to
name their children and not that of the state or the Church or any
other agency. But this does not mean that Christian parents are not
prevented by the very Christianity which they profess from giving
certain names to their children. For example, no child should be
called by the names of God. In the past some parents have used
names as follows: Divine, Jesus, Immanuel. No one should consent to
baptize a child by one of these names. Parents should also be dis-
couraged from naming their children after angels inasmuch as these
names are borrowed from a sinless domain, the sacredness of which
would not be enhanced in our estimation and thought if its names
were given to sinful beings. Nor would a Christian parent think of
calling his child Cain, Judas, Jezebel, etc.

Years ago, particularly among the Puritans of New England, many
parents named their children after Bible characters such as Abraham,
Daniel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Paul, etc., or after certain Christian virtues
as Charity, Love, Grace, Temperance, Hope. Some of these names are
still very common. Selecting names from the Bible is certainly a great
deal better than the choosing of names from present day novels or
even from among movie stars as many are inclined to do in our day.
It is also far better to name our children after Bible characters than
to name them after outstanding men of unbelief such as Darwin,
Marx, etc. For the rest the Bible permits parents to choose names as
they see fit. Many N. T. believers had pagan names but the Bible
nowhere urges these converts to adopt new names. We should never
become overly scrupulous on this score.

Why is only the given name mentioned at the time of baptism and

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

249

not the family name ? Doubtless the primary explanation for this fact
is a historical one. Years ago people had no family names but only
their own personal given names. These were mentioned at baptism,
and this custom continued also after family names were introduced.
But the usage also has this significance, that the given name is the
strictly personal name of the individual, whereas he holds the family
name in common with many others. By mentioning only the given
name or names the personal significance of the baptismal assurances
st?nd out all the more. But even so we know of no serious argument
by reason of which the complete name should not be pronounced at
the time of Baptism. To do so would help larger Churches to know
who the parents are which are having their children baptized. The
congregation should know this. The parents at the time of Baptism
assume certain vows, not only before God, but also before the Church.
Consequently the Church should know who they are that have as-
sumed solemn obligations. One way in which this object can be at-
tained still more satisfactorily, however, is to have the Minister an-
nounce the names of the parents who are presenting their children
for Baptism, just before the Form is being read, and in the order in
which the children are to be baptized. In smaller Churches such
measures are not out of place, but less necessary.

Nearly every Church, if not every Church, keeps not only a record
of Baptisms, but a complete membership record. These membership
records will, as a rule, give the full names of parents and children to-
gether with a record of the Baptisms, professions of faith, date of
birth, removal through death, departure to another congregation, etc.
Many of these matters are not required in Article 60 of the Church
Order, but are nevertheless things that ought to be recorded and kept.
We would commend our Churches for keeping these complete records.

ARTICLE LXI

None shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper except those
who , according to the usage of the Church with which they
unite themselves , have made a confession of the Reformed
Religion, besides being reputed to be of a godly walk, without
which those who come from other Churches shall not be ad-
mitted.

ADMISSION TO THE LORD’S SUPPER

The next four articles concern the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
Article 61 concerns admission to the Lord's Table; Article 62 refers
to the manner in which the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated; Article
63 concerns the frequency of administering the Lord’s Supper; and
Article 64 stipulates a condition for the administration of Holy Com-
munion.

In these four articles not nearly all questions of a church govern-
mental nature pertaining to the Lord’s Supper are covered. The
Church Order merely indicates the fundamental principles which
should guide us. It is, as has been said before, not a book of detailed
rules and regulations to which one can merely turn when an emergency
arises and find the solution in ready made form. The Church Order
does not aim to dictate as to all manner of details, which may be very

250

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

unessential. Thus the Church Order safeguards our liberties, al-
though it at the same time safeguards us against dangerous and un-
JBiblical policies. This it does by clearly and briefly putting down
for us the governing principles which must be applied with discrimi-
ation and care in every case.

Article 61 regulates two matters: The admission to the Lord’s Table
by profession of faith of those who are members by Baptism, and the
admission to the Lord’s Table of those who come from other Churches
of the denomination.

1. Admission to the Lord’s Supper of members by Baptism.

Article 61 makes it very nlain that not all are welcome at the Lord’s
Table in our Churches. The Sacraments are signs and seals of the
remission of our sins by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ. Now
only those who are true believers have their sins forgiven. Con-
sequently, the signs and seals of this forgiveness should be given only
to those concerning whom we have reasons to believe that they are
true believers.

Already at the Convention of Wezel, 1568, the question arose; who
are to be admitted to Holy Communion? The Convention answered:
No one shall be admitted to the Lord’s Table unless he first shall have
made profession of faith and shall have submitted himself to the dis-
cipline of the Church. This ruling was re-affirmed by the Synod of
1578 (Dordrecht) in slightly different words, and rewritten by the
Middelburg Synod of 1581 in the wording as we still have it in Article
61 today.

From the foregoing it becomes evident that the Reformed Churches
from the Reformation era on have held that attendance at the Lord’s
Table is not free to all. It is not a matter which is to be left to
the judgment of individuals. The office-bearers are guardians over
the Lord’s Table. They must only admit those whom they believe to
be worthy. Erastus and the Remonstrants — those defending the tenets
of Arminianism — held that attendance or non-attendance at the Lord’s
Table should be left to the individual conscience. Many Christians all
over the world still defend this theory. Some adhering to the Re-
formed faith seem to hold to this theory. For example, in many
Reformed Churches of southern Holland large numbers of confessing
members seldom come to the Lord’s Table. The same is true for the
Gereformeerde Gemeenten, “Oud-Gereformeerden,” or Netherland-Re-
formed Churches. Members of these and other groups go to the Lord’s
Table if they have certain subjective experiences, and abstain if these
are lacking at the time the Lord’s Supper is observed. If they are
spiritually at high-tide they partake. If they are spiritually depressed
and at low-tide they abstain. But this practice does not harmonize
with the position which our Reformed leaders took from the very
outset. The attitude and policy referred to arose when spiritual life
began to decline in the Reformed Churches, and was bom in part
from the re-action to worldlimindedness and shallowmindedness. But
is it not typical of the historical Reformed position. In our own
Churches there are still a few who, though they have made confes-
sion of faith, seldom or never come to the Lord’s Table. In 1904 our
Synod decided that Consistories should not receive into full member-
ship those who did not intend to partake of the Lord’s Table regularly.
(Acts, Synod, Art. 125)

Yet not all baptized members of the Church were permitted to go
to the Lord’s Tabled If all baptized children would be true to their
baptism and manifest true faith in Christ and loyalty to His Word in

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

251

conduct, then as soon as children would come to years of understand-
ing they might approach unto the Lord’s Supper without first securing
permission to do so. But conditions are never ideal. There is always
some chaff mixed with the wheat. There are Esaus among covenant-
keeping young people in every Church. And so Voetius, in answer to
the question whether not all baptized individuals should be consid-
ered as entitled to partake of the Lord’s Table, answered, “No.” Said
he in substance: Faith may be present potentially without having as
yet developed into actual faith. And actual faith is necessary for the
proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The essence of faith may be
present by regeneration, but the fruit of regeneration, conversion,
must also be present.*

Ordinarily we speak of confession or profession of faith, whereas
Article 61 speaks of “confession of the Reformed Religion.” There is
no conflict here. He who makes “confession of the Reformed Re-
ligion,” acknowledges all the essentials of the gospel of salvation with
application to himself. So does he who makes confession or
profession of faith.” But the phrase “confession of the Reformed Re-
ligion” does include a little more than the expression “confession or
profession of faith.” The phrase of our Church Order implies
that he who makes confession of faith in our Churches must
not only assent with self-appropriation to the general truths of
Christianity but he must be able to declare that he believes the Re-
formed interpretation to be correct, Biblical. Some Church groups do
not require assent to their particular creed as a condition for mem-
bership. Thus the Presbyterian Churches generally do require of
office-bearers that they agree with the specific doctrines of the
Church, but the ordinary members need not declare agreement.
Though they should question and reject some Reformed positions, yet
they would be entitled to membership.

It should be plain however that a Church, if its members are ad-
mitted without confessing the Reformed fundamentals, cannot remain
Reformed. After all the individual members, and not the clergy and
the eldership, constitute the Church. And the confessional standards
of a Church can only be Forms of Unity when the membership con-
fesses these standards. If the members of a Church do not confess
its standards to be biblical the Church loses its power and also its
raison d'etre. A Church which does not require of its members that
they agree with its doctrinal tenets opens the doors to those who ad-
vocate false doctrines; heresy is bound to enter in, and eventually
modernism may even predominate.

We may therefore thank God that our Churches still expect our
young people — and all others that desire membership in our Churches
— as they make confession of faith, to agree with the specific doc-
trines of our Churches. Not as if there is no room for difference of
opinion within the walls of our ecclesiastical city. There certainly is
and should be. But regarding the great doctrine of the Church of
Christ as these find a clear expression in our doctrinal Standards, all
those that seek and receive full membership rights in our Churches
should be agreed. The peace and purity of the Churches require that
all members be fully agreed on all vital, major, questions of doctrine.
No Church can reasonably expect to remain pure and loyal which
admits to membership such as are at odds with the Church on one or
more vital doctrines. And this consistent position of our Churches
does not spell injustice toward any child of God. They who do not

• Jansen: Xorte Verklaring, etc., 1923, p. 271.

252

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

agree with us should simply seek and join a Church with which they
are agreed. Let one who is methodistic in doctrine join a Methodist
Church. Let one who is baptistic in doctrine affiliate with a Baptist
Church, etc. Our Churches have always taken the stand expressed
in Article 61, although we believe with all our hearts that there is a
holy Catholic Church and that the Christian Church is by no means
limited to the Christian Reformed denomination together with some
other local Reformed organizations. Prof. Bouwman claims that for
this very reason the first question of the Form for Confession of Faith
speaks of the articles of the Christian faith, taught in this Christian
Church, and not of the Reformed faith and the Reformed Church.*
We thus give expression to one unity with the entire Christian Church,
especially in regard to the Sacraments. We do not desire to seDarate
ourselves from the general Christian Church, although we take a de-
cided stand when testing those who ask to be admitted to the Lord’s
Supper.

Not only must those who receive admittance to the Lord’s Table
make confession of the Reformed religion, but they must also be “re-
puted to be of a godly walk.” They who make confession of faith
and thereby receive admission to the Lord’s Table, must not merely
profess to be Christians but their past conduct must be an evidence
of this fact. They must be known as Christians. One who says that
he believes but fails to manifest his faith is to be rejected. Although
one should make a beautiful confession but should fail to live in keep-
ing with the confession, he is to be rejected until his life, his conduct,
sets the seal of genuineness upon his confession. Doctrine and life
should therefore both receive proper attention.

It is well for our Consistories to be very careful on this score. God
judges the hearts, it is true. But we should avoid all that may en-
courage externalism. We should question young people and all that
come to make confession of faith personally. In larger Churches it
may be necessary that an able Committee of the Consistory be ap-
pointed to confer with all applicants personally. When a number of
applicants are questioned at the same time it is very difficult to say
whether their replies regarding personal piety and faith are really
their own. And no Consistory should be satisfied if applicants are
only able to recite the Compendium. Doctrinal knowledge and purity
is important. But personal piety is no less important. Neither should
questions regarding personal piety be couched in such words that
applicants can merely reply by a very evident “yes” or “no.” Let
the questions be formulated in such a way that the applicants must
speak for themselves and so that they are required to formulate their
replies. Of course, every Consistory or committee must exercise dis-
cretion. Some applicants will have very little to say. Their natural
ability for self-expression may be very limited. They may be ex-
tremely nervous. In such cases, if the Consistory is convinced that
the applicant is sincere, and if his past conduct reveals the fear of
the Lord, the Consistory will be lenient and exercise charity and good-
will. But at the other hand, if an applicant gives just reasons for
doubt he should not be admitted presently. The Minister or a com-
mittee should instruct him further, and prayerfully labor with him,
until such a time that he can be admitted without hesitation.

We do not mean to say that youthful applicants and babes in Christ
must be judged by standards which apply to Christians which are
fully matured. Not at all. But the Consistories must have good

• Bouwman: Gher. Xerkrecht, II, pp. 382, 3.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

253

reasons to believe that applicants are children of God, and that they
have such a measure of knowledge and understanding of biblical doc-
trine as may reasonably be expected.

There is a synodical ruling which requires that Consistories shall
ask every person making confession of faith whether or not the ap-
plicant is a member of any secret, oath-bound society. (Acts, Synod
1967, Art. 15 and Acts, Synod 1900, Article 84) Those who are lodge
members are not to be admitted. One main reason for withholding the
Lord’s Supper and membership rights from lodge-members is that the
lodge is representative of a false, anti-Christian religion. The lodges
teach that if a man is a good lodge-member, even though he fails to
believe in Jesus Christ as the only Savior, he will be saved. Conse-
quently lodge-membership and Church-membership cannot go together.

The Synod of 1928, faced with the fact that worldly-mindedness was
very clearly on the increase in our Churches, made the following
resolution: “Consistories are instructed to inquire of those who ask
to be examined previous to making public confession of their faith
and partaking of the Lord's Supper as to their stand and conduct in
the matter of worldly amusements, and, if it appears that they are
not minded to lead the life of Christian separation and consecration,
not to permit their public confession.” (Acts, Synod 1928, Article 96)
This resolution should not be interpreted legalistically. Synod of
1928 did not try to write a catalogue of sinful practices. The resolu-
tion quoted is Hie sixth adopted regarding the problem of worldliness.
Already in the third resolution Synod of 1928 spoke as follows: “Synod
urges all our leaders and all our people to pray and labor for the
awakening and deepening of spiritual life in general, and to be keenly
aware of the absolute indispensability of keeping our religious life
vital and powerful, through daily prayer, the earnest searching of the
Scriptures, and through engaging in practical Christian works, which
are the best antidote against worldliness.”

Synod of 1928 took these and other praiseworthy resolutions with a
view to worldly-mindedness and worldly amusements in general, al-
though it mentioned in particular the familiar trio of theater-attend-
ance, dancing, and card-playing.

None of us would care to maintain that all amusements are in them-
selves evil. There are many forms of amusements which are whole-
some and good. Neither would we care to claim that all amusements
which are contaminated with sin, and which are used by the devil to
further his cause, are in themselves altogether evil. But we do main-
tain that all amusements which clearly hurt our spiritual life and
tend to stem normal, Biblical, spiritual devotion, and which break
down the God-built barriers of spiritual separation between the
Church and the world, should be left alone by all Christians. (Cf.
I Cor. 8:9; James 4:4; Col. 3:1, 2; Matt. 16:24; 18:8, 9; etc.)

Anyone who desires to indulge in practices which have constituted
a damaging, down-breaking force to spiritual living, and who is not
ready to forsake these things after the sinfulness of these amuse-
ments and their evil influence has been clearly demonstrated to him,
by that very attitude gives just reasons to doubt the sincerity of his
heart, and just reasons to question his spiritual fitness for admission
to the Lord’s Table. Consequently, our Churches are right in not per-
mitting to the Lord’s Table those who do not intend to lead a life of
Christian separation.

The “Report on Worldly Amusements” found in the Agenda for the

254

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Synod of 1928 should be read and prayerfully studied by all who ques-
tion the correctness of our stand on this score.*

Confession before the Consistory or a committee of the Consistory
is only preliminary to the real confession of faith, which takes place
before the whole Church. For this reason the names of those who
have made confession before the Consistory are announced to the
Church in order that those who may have objections against their
admission may register these with the Consistory. For admission to
the Lord’s Table and full membership rights must take place with the
approval of the whole Church. The names of applicants are usually
announced on two successive Sundays. This is no requirement of the
Church Order. One announcement may be enough, especially in
smaller Churches. But the general custom of announcing the names
on two different Sundays is a good usage.

Formerly part of the actual questioning would also take place be-
fore the whole congregation, but this public examination was found
to be impracticable. Young people with timid dispositions and
nervously inclined dreaded this public questioning. Synod of Dor-
drecht, 1574, therefore introduced our present procedure. The actual
examination takes place before the Consistory or a committee of the
Consistory, and before the congregation the applicants merely answer
affirmatively to a number of formulated questions.

We have a Form for the Public Profession of Faith. This form is
of recent origin, having been approved by our Synod of 1932. It may
be found on page 86 of the Psalter Hymnal, appended section. Our
Churches formulated or modeled this beautiful and meaningful form
after one adopted by the Reformed Churches of Holland in 1923.

The expression “with which they unite themselves,” as this occurs
in Article 61, might lead some to think that making confession of
faith is really “joining the Church.” It is sometimes said among us
that those who make profession of faith and receive permission to go
to the Lords’ Table are “joining the Church.” This expression has
been rightly condemned. It comes to us from Churches who do not
have the Reformed covenant conception regarding children of believ-
ing parents. Not only are those who have made confession of faith
members of the Church organization to which they belong, but bap-
tized children and young people are also Church members. The full
membership rights are not theirs. But there is a definite tie that binds
them to the Church organization in whose midst they live. They are
not like strangers and outsiders. They are in the Church by virtue
of their Baptism. Consequently they cannot join themselves to the
Church by confession of faith. If I am already a citizen of the United
States while still a mere child, I cannot become a citizen of the
United States when I am of age. I can acknowledge my citizen-
ship and I can receive my full citizenship rights, but I cannot become
what I already am. Thus they who make confession of faith do not
join the Church, although they do receive full membership rights and
openly acknowledge their membership obligations.

The expression “with which they unite themselves” as found in this
article was perhaps incorporated here inasmuch as many in the early
years of the Reformation came from the Roman Church and actually
united themselves with the Church in question when confession of
faith was made. Article 61, let us remember, was formulated long
before the Synod of Dort, 1618-19. If ever Article 61 should be re-

* This Report has been separately published by the Rev. John De Haan,
Jr., of Grand Rapids, Michigan.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

255

vised it might be well to make it read somewhat as follows: “None
shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper except those who, according
to the usage of the Church with which they stand connected by rea-
son of their Baptism, shall have made confession . .

To what does the phrase, “. . . according to the usage of the Church,”
refer ? The methods of receiving young people and other non-confess-
ing members into full membership of the Churches differed on some
points in various Churches. Some examined by means of a committee
of the Consistory; some Consistories interrogated applicants before
the whole body of the Consistory; still others examined their appli-
cants in the presence of all the Church members. Also in regard to
the announcement made and time intervening between private and
public confession there was some variation. As in numerous other
matters, the Churches wanted to leave as many liberties to the in-
dividual Churches as they possibly could. Each Church established
its own rule. Today we have more uniformity. But we have no
forced uniformity. Every Church still has the right to arrange vari-
ous details regarding confession of faith as it sees fit.

Article 61 definitely commits our Churches against the practice of
“open communion.” Those who practice or advocate “open commun-
ion” often defend their stand by claiming that Holy Communion is
the Lord’s Supper, and not the supper of the Christian Reformed
Churches, and that we may therefore not exclude those who belong
to other Churches. This argument is, it seems to us, rather childlike.
Of course, Holy Communion is an institution of our Lord. But every
Church and every body of office-bearers has a solemn duty to guard
the sacredness of this Supper of our Lord, and to restrain unworthy
persons from increasing their guilt of sin by partaking of this holy
institution. Essentially we bar no one, except unbelievers, from the
Lord’s Table. The greatest of sinners are welcome, if only they will
confess their sins and manifest faith and sincerity. Let those who de-
sire to celebrate Holy Communion take the proper steps to gain per-
mission to share this great blessing. Let no one desire to set aside the
offices which Christ has placed as guardians over His Table. And if
one be a sincere believer but not in agreement with the doctrinal or
practical position of our Churches, we have neither the desire nor the
power to restrain him from going to the Lord’s Table. Only let him
celebrate the Lord’s Supper with those with whom he agrees and ac-
cording to the dictates of his own conscience. Thus he will promote
good order and peace.

Fundamentally the difference between those who advocate “open
communion” and those who maintain “close communion,” is a ques-
tion of recognition and non-recognition of the authority of Christ
vested in the office-bearers. We and other Churches which maintain
close communion say that Christ placed the office-bearers in charge
of the Sacraments. The sanctity of the Sacraments must be zealously
guarded by the servants of Christ. Whether or not one shall approach
unto the Lord’s Table is not simply up to the individual. He must
recognize the officers appointed for this work by Christ. Neither may
any Consistory delegate this charge to the individuals by announcing
that all who are members of some other Church in good and regular
standing and desirous of observing the Lord’s Supper are invited to
partake. This is not as bad as an unconditional invitation, but it is a
form of open communion, for the question of attendance or non-at-
tendance at the Lord’s Table is after all left solely to the judgment of
the individuals concerned. One altogether unworthy may thus be
given permission to partake. This would be a desecration of the

256

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Lord’s Table which might have been avoided, and an opening of an
avenue of sin by the office-bearers to the unworthy participant.

Is there any room for “visitors” at the Lord’s Table in our
Churches? Yes, there is. We should not become sentimental in the
unwholesome sense of the word and think that it would be terrible
if a believer of another Church, who partakes regularly in his own
Church, should not partake at a Church which he happens to visit
while Communion is being celebrated. But if a visitor has a desire
to celebrate the Lord’s death with the congregation with which he is
to worship, then let him speak to the office-bearers before and, if
possible during the week, or, if need be, just prior to the service.
Unless one or more Consistory members know him personally, he
should if he is able, bring someone with him who can give testimony
regarding his faith and life. No Consistory will turn down a re-
quest of this kind, but gladly grant it. If this procedure is too much
trouble to the individual concerned his desire is not very strong. Let
him in that case merely worship sympathetically and prayerfully,
without seeking permission to partake.

If young people are to make confession of faith intelligently and
sincerely they must be well-informed. For the sake of our Churches
and for the sake of our members our Churches have ever worked for
thorough indoctrination. The catechism class has been the main
means of indoctrination in the past. Catechetical instruction is in-
dispensable to the welfare of our Churches as Reformed Churches.
Synod of 1912 (Art. 57) appealed most earnestly and urgently to all
Classes and Consistories to guard against the danger of relegating
to the background, or of wholly neglecting catechetical instruction.
And Synod of 1928 recommended a nine-month catechism season. And
while our Churches were still in their early youth they already ruled
that parents who wilfully neglected to send their children to cate-
chism made themselves worthy of discipline, even to the extent of
excommunication. And young people who refused to attend catechism
although they had not yet made confession of faith were likewise to
be disciplined.*

2. Admittance to the Lord's Supper to members of other
affiliated Churches.

The concluding statement of Article 61 merely reads: “without
which those who come from other Churches shall not be admitted.”
Those who have already made profession of faith before another
Church and have therefore been admitted to the Lord’s Table in this
other Church, shall not be permitted to go to the Lord's Table in a
Church of which they are not members except they be reputed to be
of a godly walk. That is the sense of this concluding provision of
Article 61. The reference is to such as remove from one locality to
another. If someone had moved to another town or city, he was not
to be accepted as a member of the Reformed Church of his new home
and to receive permission to go to the Lord’s Table unless he could
give witness regarding his godliness. This witness was to be deliv-
ered by means of a certificate of membership, an attestation, or
Church letter. Of these Article 82 speaks specifically and consequently
we shall not go into details here.

Note that grammatically Article 61 only requires that those that
come to us from another of our Churches be “reputed to be of a godly
walk”. Soundness in doctrine is not included. However, the context

• Cf. Algemeene Bepalingen, 62 and 62a, 1881.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

267

speaks of both, soundness in doctrine and godliness of life. Both
should be certified. This is the evident significance of the article.
For both are required of members by Baptism applying for admis-
sion to the Lord’s Supper. Then why should not both be required of
those coming from elsewhere? Article 82 also makes this very plain.

At first members from elsewhere would be accepted upon their own
testimony. But a number of unworthy persons who were looking for
money and support would move from place to place and with pious
talk gain the confidence of the believers. To check this abuse the rule
of Article 61 was adopted. At first the Churches had to be lenient
in this respect, for if fugitives from Roman civil authorities were
found with membership attestations on their person, escape was im-
possible. Some had to flee for their lives and could not be expected
to carry a certificate of membership. Consequently the Churches were
very lenient and often gave applicants the benefit of the doubt. But
as the persecution subsided the rule of Article 61 was generally en-
forced.

The article speaks simply of “other Churches.” The reference is
not to any other Churches in general, but to other affiliated Churches,
other particular Reformed Churches. The denomination consisted of
various individual Churches which all agreed in doctrine and church
government. These Churches therefore formed a logical unit, and
consequently lived and labored together. They agreed to honor each
other’s letters of testimony concerning members moving from one
locality to another. Article 61 in no way means to say that our fore-
fathers accepted such as belonged to a Lutheran Church or an Ana-
baptistic group upon the mere testimony of a letter from one of these
Churches. And thus the matter stands today. We receive each other’s
members as Christian Reformed Churches upon letters of testimony
to each other. And without such letters of testimony no Church is
to receive a member from one of our other Churches. That is the
point here.

It may be remarked here that our fathers found a precedent for
letters of testimony in the Bible itself. (Cf. Acts 18:27 and Rom.
16:1.)

Some practical considerations which concern the matter of Church
letters will come up for consideration when we discuss Article 82.

3. Admittance to the Lord’s Supper of those who come from Churches
of other denominations.

A letter of testimony presented by a member of one of the Re-
formed Churches of the Netherlands (Gereformeerde Kerken van
Nederland) is accepted by us just as certificates from one of our own
Churches. All letters coming to us from Churches of other related
denominations are not accepted forthwith. Applicants for membership
presenting letters of testimony from a Church belonging neither to
our own denomination nor to the Gereformeerde Kerken van Neder-
land, are first to be examined as to their doctrinal soundness and
their fitness to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The form of their ad-
mission is left to the Consistory, but the congregation must be given
an opportunity to present possible objections. (Acts, Synod 1904,
Article 125.) Schaver in his “Christian Reformed Church Order
(Zondervan’s, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1937) gives us a list of related
denominations with which at one time or another, our Synods have
decided to establish correspondence. We quote:

“(1) The Reformed Churches of the Netherlands (Acts 1879, Art.
18); (2) The Old Reformed Churches of East Frisia and Bentheim

258

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

(now united with the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, J.L.3.)»
and the Evangelical Church in Silesia (Acts 1879, Art. 18a); (3) The
Reformed Churches of South Africa (Acts 1879, Art. 18); (4) The
Reformed Church in America (Acts 1893, p. 53); (5) The United
Presbyterian Church (Acts 1898, p. 53); (6) Synod and General Synod,
Reformed Presbyterian Churches (Acts 1900, p. 52); (7) Associate
Presbyterian Church (Acts 1900, p. 52); (8) The Christian Reformed
Church in the Netherlands (Acts 1910, p. 60; Acts 1936, p. 97).”

In regard to the newly organized Presbyterian Church of America
(1936), now the Orthodox Presbyterian Church of America, our
Synod of 1936 decided: “Inasmuch as the Presbyterian Church of
Ainerica has not finally adopted its Constitution, Synod decides to
postpone the question of correspondence with said body. This does
not exclude, however, the sending of greetings and the sending of
delegates to each other’s major assemblies.” (Acts of Synod, 1936,
Article 143.)

Sad to say, many of these related denominations are far from being
Reformed. There is much doctrinal laxness and consequent impurity
among many of them. Consequently though we acknowledge all the
good which may be found in many of these Churches, and though we
appreciate the love and loyalty to our Reformed conceptions still
present in these groups, yet laxness in doctrine and life prevents us
from honoring membership certificates coming from these Churches
at face value.

As a rule members from any of these Churches who apply for
membership with one of our Churches will be visited by a competent
committee of the Consistory. This committee reports its findings to
the Consistory, and if the Consistory finds no objections to accept the
applicant announcement is made to the Church, stating that unless
valid objections are presented to the Consistory, applicants will be
admitted at the next meeting of that body. However, if a Consistory
deems it necessary and so desires the applicants are requested to
appear before the whole Consistory, there to be questioned and con-
ferred with.

Those who apply for membership in one of our Churches, and previ-
ously members of a non-related and unreformed Church, are first to
be instructed. For instance those who were formerly Methodists, Bap-
tists, etc., should be carefully and faithfully labored with. Age and
circumstances should be considered. But those who are able should
be thoroughly instructed in the doctrine of our Churches, either by
means of a catechism class or privately. All those that come to us
from non-reformed Churches should signify assent to the doctrines
of our Churches publicly. Whether in every instance the Form for
Public Profession of Faith should be used we would not determine,
although it will be found appropriate in most instances. But accept-
ance should be in the meeting of all the believers, so that all may
hear that the applicant professes the true faith. Many who come
from related and nominally Reformed Churches should likewise be
received publicly. This will be, we believe, to the welfare of both
applicant and Church.

In every case those coming from other denominations should be
carefully asked regarding their attitude toward the lodge, and many
other practical attitudes and conceptions of life, such as Sabbath ob-
servance, worldly amusements, etc.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

259

ARTICLE LXII.

Every Church shall administer the Lord's Supper in such a
manner as it shall judge most conducive to edification; provided,
however , that the outward ceremonies as prescribed in God's
Word be not changed and all superstition avoided , and that at
the conclusion of the sermon arid the usual prayers, the Form
for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, together with the
prayer for that purpose, shall be read.

METHOD OF ADMINISTERING THE LORD’S SUPPER

Regarding the essence of the Lord’s Supper the Reformed Churches
differed radically from the Roman Churches. Concerning the com-
munion table the issues were very pronounced and clear-cut. It stands
to reason that this difference regarding the essence of the Lord’s
Table should reflect itself in the method of administration of this
Sacrament.

1. Matters left to the judgment of the particular Churches.

One of the first practical questions which confronted the Reforma-
tion Churches was this: Should communicants stand, sit, kneel, or
walk as they receive the bread and wine? Out of respect for the
Lord’s Table some believers desired to kneel while they partook of
the elements. The Synod of Dort, 1578, raised its voice against this
practice and ruled against it because of the danger of superstition.
In the Roman Church communicants knelt and venerated the elements,
which really meant that they prayed to the bread and wine which
they believed to have been changed into the true body and blood of
Christ. This idolatrous practice and conception our fathers naturally
condemned, and they wanted nothing of the kind in the purified
Churches. Therefore kneeling at the Lord’s Table was ruled out.

Whether the communicants should sit or stand while the Minister
gave them, each individually, the bread and the wine, or whether the
communicants should walk past the Minister to receive the elements
from his hand, these questions were left to the particular Churches
to answer as they saw fit. Seemingly the custom of walking past the
Minister to receive the bread and wine was soon discarded. At least
the first regular Synod, Emden 1571, spoke only of standing or sit-
ting, and left the choice between these two to the particular Churches.
It also appears that the usage of sitting soon became common, for
the Synod of Dort, 1574, judged that the standing posture was the
most appropriate at the Lord’s Table, but cautioned not to introduce
standing at the Lord’s Table abruptly, inasmuch as the sitting posture
was already in common practice, but to bring about the change in
this respect whenever such could be done conveniently. But the fol-
lowing Synod judged that it made no difference whether communi-
cants sat or stood as they received the elements. Eventually the cus-
tom of sitting became common.

Another matter regarding -which there is some difference, and
which has been left to the judgment of each individual Church, is the
question whether all the communicants shall partake at one and the
same time, or whether they shall communicate in groups. In some
of our Churches separate groups of believers come forward and take
their place at or near the communion table and thus celebrate the
Lord’s Supper as a group. After the first distinct administration, a
second follows for a second group; then a third, and so on, until all

260

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

communicants have participated. These distinct servings or adminis-
trations in the one communion service are designated as “tafels,” i.e.,
tables, in the Dutch language. In certain large Churches even a few
years ago as many as twelve or more distinct tables or administra-
tions occurred in one communion service. These long drawn-out serv-
ices were not as edifying as the occasion demanded. At present many
Churches have but one administration for every communion service.
All communicants seat themselves toward the front of the church,
within the limits of a designated area, and are thus served as one
body. In some instances there are no designated pews for the com-
municants. The bread and the wine is merely passed through every
pew, and communicants are seated all over the church building inter-
mingling with non-communicants.

We deem it a good thing that the old method of maintaining sev-
eral distinct administrations in one and the same communion service
has been discontinued. But there was something in this old way which
had real merit. Separate, small group administrations required the
believers to arise and to go forward to take their place at the Lord’s
Table as a distinct act, before the whole congregation. There was a
confession in that act. He who arose and walked forward thereby
virtually declared : “As a poor sinner, guilty and doomed, I take refuge
in Christ. I need Jesus. I believe on Him as my Saviour and Lord.”
The old way, moreover, introduced an element of self-expression into
the service which is worthy of appreciation and which was favorable
in its reaction on the communicants. Consequently we think that
those Churches which have maintained the two or three distinct ad-
ministrations for each celebration have done wisely. They have ruled
out the un-edifying objections against numerous “tables”, but have
conserved and saved the good points of this method. This method is
easily followed by simply setting aside a small number of pews, near
the communion table, as “communion pews.” The rule should be that
communicants who wish to partake of the second or third adminis-
tration do not come forward until those who communicated just be-
fore them are back in their seats.

If a Church maintains only one administration for every communion
service, then yet the communicants should occupy a designated area.
To pass the bread and wine through the whole church auditorium
makes it well nigh impossible for a Consistory to control communion
attendance. And parties not entitled to the Sacrament may do so
with little or no difficulty if the elements are passed along every pew.

Of old it has been the custom in our Churches that the communi-
cants bring an offering of gratitude for the snecial blessing given by
God through the Lord’s Supper. This is, beyond doubt, a noble prac-
tice and should be maintained. Many Churches set this offering aside
for the needy poor. And it is well that we should remember the
needy members of Christ’s body as we sit at His Table. This is a
laudable and appropriate way of exercising communion of saints.
Some place these communion gifts in the budget fund. This practice
we would condemn. A thank offering for the work of missions is far
more appropriate.

Another matter which, according to our Synod of 1920, should be
left to the judgment of the particular Churches, is the use of com-
mon or of individual cups. Some have questioned the claim that
Christ at the institution of the Lord’s Supper used a common cup.
It seems to us that the words of Matt. 26:27 and Mark 14:23 leave
no room for doubt. Concerning the cup which Christ took we read,
“He gave to them: and they all drank of it.” Concerning these words

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

261

Edersheim (speaking of the Passover) says: ‘‘I have often expressed
my conviction that, in the ancient Services there was considerable
elasticity and liberty left to the individual. At present a cup is filled
for each individual but Christ seems to have passed the one cup
round among the Disciples. Whether such was sometimes done, or
the alteration was designedly, and as we readily see, significantly,
made by Christ, cannot now be determined." (Edersheim: The Life
and Times of Jesus, the Messiah, Vol. II, page 496, footnote 3).

We believe that it ought to be granted that the common cup at
the Lord’s Table is expressive of Christian unity even though one
should desire to question whether Christ actually used the common
cup with the deliberate purpose of giving expression to this Christian
unity. Some say that Christ used the common cup merely because
it was the custom of the day. Perhaps these are right, although it is
only an opinion. It is worthy of note that men like Edersheim, (see
above) and Godet (see his commentary on Luke, Chap. 22:17) seem
to question whether the common cup was in vogue in Jesus’ day and
at the Passover feasts.

At the other hand we believe that it should be granted that the
introduction of individual cups at the Lord’s Table does not concern
the essence of the Sacrament. We do lose a bit of symbolism but we
lose nothing regarding the essence of the Lord’s Table. And the
symbolism which we lose is very likely only incidental. Let it also
be remembered that over against the loss of symbolism which we
suffer when we discard the common cup, we should note that which
we gain by using the individual cups. In this day of widespread and
more thorough knowledge concerning disease germs, of individual
drinking cups in the home, of individual paper cups and drinking
fountains in public places, it is verv natural that the common cup at
the Lord’s Table, going from mouth to mouth, constitutes a detrac-
tion and a hindrance for at least some communicants. By using indi-
vidual cups this source of detraction and hindrance is removed. And
that is a gain.

The Reformed Churches of the Netherlands use the common cup
exclusively. The individual cup has not met with favor thus far. Yet
the Synod of 1920 of these Churches decided that when the use of the
common cup at health institutions, by those who have contagious
diseases, presents the danger of communicating these diseases, then
the Consistory concerned, after having heard the advice of the physi-
cians, may take measures regarding the celebration of the Lord’s
Supper which are designed to counteract the danger of infection.
This permissive ruling of the Holland Churches indicates that the
Reformed Churches of the Netherlands virtually agreed that the ques-
tion of common or individual cups does not touch the real essence of
the Sacrament. For surely these Churches would not adopt a ruling
which would cripple the celebration of the Lord’s Supper regarding

But we repeat, there are certainly arguments in favor of the com-
mon cup. Sometimes Ministers seek to cleanse the common cups
somewhat with a napkin before they are circulated a second or third
time. This measure of sanitation is well meant, but also serves to
draw the attention of the new communicants to the fact that the cups
are no longer fresh. Consistories could better buy so many common
cups, that new groups of communicants would receive a fresh cup
and so that only a limited number would use one and the same cup.
an essential feature.

Another matter which is not considered to be essential is whether
the administering office-bearer shall read from the Bible while the

262

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

guests partake of the bread and wine or whether the congregation
shall sing appropriately. In nearly all our Churches, as well as those
of the Netherlands, the officiating Minister reads such passages as
the Form suggests while the elements are being passed, and the con-
gregation sings while the guests approach unto the table, or depart.
The custom, still practiced a few years ago by many of our Ministers,
to discourse on some subject while the communicants partake is fast
becoming obsolete. Rightly so, we deem. These discourses often dis-
tracted the attention of the communicants from the silent language
of the symbols, and perhaps even hindered some in their quiet medi-
tations. Some Ministers preserve a reverential silence while the bread
is passed and only break this silence with the reading of God’s own
Word as the cup is passed.

2. Things to be observed and things to be avoided.

The present article provides that “every Church shall administer
the Lord’s Supper in such a manner as it shall judge most conducive
to edification.” But a proviso or condition is added, the first part of
which reads as follows: “provided, however, that the outward cere-
monies as prescribed in God's Word be not changed and all supersti-
tion avoided . . .

The Wezelian Convention ruled that the breaking of the bread
should be considered to be a necessary element in the administration
of the Lord’s Supper, inasmuch as Christ clearly included this fea-
ture in the institution of the Sacrament.

For generations back the Reformed Churches have been in the
habit of cutting the bread to be used into long strips, which strips
are to be broken into small fragments in the presence and sight of
the communicants. In some of our Churches only a small part of the
bread is broken at the time of the actual service. This is doubtlessly
done to save time. We cannot approve of this new usage. The break-
ing of the bread has definite symbolic significance. It points to the
breaking of Christ’s body for us, and was by Him included in the
ceremony. It is better to abbreviate the sermon so that there will be
sufficient time for the proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper, than
to lengthen the sermon to almost normal duration at the expense of
the Sacrament. Let us by all means so arrange the communion serv-
ice and the program of the day that ample time will be found for
the celebration of Holy Communion. The commemorative ordinance
of the Lord’s Supper should be a very meaningful and solemn event
in the experience of believers. At the Communion Table if anywhere
we should take our time and avoid rushing and crowding.

Inasmuch as Christ used Passover bread, some have contended that
we should use unleavened bread at the Lord’s Table. The Roman
Church does. The Reformed Churches from the days of the Reforma-
tion have advocated the use of ordinary bread.* In some Churches
at the beginning the unleavened wafers of the Roman Church were
used, but it was only a question of time before these were everywhere
supplanted by regular bread.

The wine which is to be used is real wine, inasmuch as Christ used
wine and not merely grape juice. Without good reasons we should not
introduce substitutes for the elements used by Christ. Not that our
Reformed fathers were fanatic on this score. They allowed substitutes
if ordinary bread and wine were not to be gotten. So, for instance,
rice-bread was permitted if need required, and water was even substi-

• Bouwman: Gereformeerd Xerkrecht, IV, 1934, p. 415.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

263

tuted for wine if the latter could not be secured, or if certain com-
municants were ordered not to use any wine by a physician.

Should teetotalers be permitted grape juice or water for wine? No,
Christ used wine and unless necessity compels us we should use the
element used by Christ.

Those in charge should provide enough bread for the Lord’s Table so
that each communicant may receive a fragment not overly small.
And when individual cups are used some way should be found which
permits the Minister to pour the wine in the sight of the communi-
cants.

3. The /Form for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper to be read.

In our Forms our Churches have a clear, Biblical expression re-
garding the ceremonies and Sacraments. To avoid unbiblical con-
ceptions it is required that these be constantly read as they are. We
may thank God for the wealth which is ours through our various
Forms. Without these Forms constantly read in the Churches it would
be much harder to maintain the correct conceptions regarding the
offices in the Church, its Sacraments, etc.

In some of our Churches the first part of the Form for the Lord’s
Supper has been read on the Sunday previous to the celebration of
Holy Communion, and the concluding half just before the celebration.
This is not according to Article 62. It says very clearly, “at the con-
clusion of the sermon and the usual prayers, the Form for the Ad-
ministration of the Lord’s Supper, . . . shall be read.” The Form is
not meant to be split in two. It constitutes a unit. The arguments
in favor of the usage alluded to are not of sufficient weight. And
the practice does not seem to give very good satisfaction where it has
been tried.

When the Lord’s Supper is served at two distinct services on Com-
munion Sunday, say morning and afternoon or morning and evening,
the Form should be read at both services. If this is not done, some
communicants may constantly partake of the Lord’s Supper without
hearing the Form. This is not as it should be. All communicants
need to hear its rich and meaningful content before approaching to
the Lord’s Table.

The formula which the officiating Minister should use before passing
the bread and wine is not definitely prescribed by Holy Writ. We
have it recorded in varying words. (Cf. Matt. 26:26:28; Mark 14:22-
24; Luke 22:19,20; I Cor. 11:23-25.) The early Reformation Churches
in Holland used either of two formulae, that of Datheen or that of
a Lasco. The latter was Minister to the Dutch refugee Church in
London. He used the following formulae : “The bread which we break
is a communion of the body of Christ. Take, eat, remember, and be-
lieve that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was broken unto a com-
plete remission of all our sins.” And: “The cup of blessing which we
bless is a communion of the blood of Christ. Take, drink ye all of it,
remember, and believe that the precious blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ was shed unto a complete remission of all our sins.” The first
parts of these formulae are based upon the wording of I Cor. 1:16.
The additional words are explanatory exhortations.

Datheen in his Liturgy used only the first parts of these formulae,
the words namely as they are found almost literally in I Cor. 16:10.
As remarked above, both of these formulations were in use in the
early Reformed Churches. However, the formulation of a Lasco was
officially approved by the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, inasmuch as this
Synod adopted the liturgy as published by Schilders in 1611, and

264

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

this edition of the liturgy uses the fuller formula of a Lasco and
not that of Datheen. Consequently, our Churches today also follow
the & Lasco formulation. (Cf. Form for the Lord’s Supper.) This
formulation is indeed simple, clear and yet beautiful. We may appre-
ciate the fact that its use has again become general both in the Neth-
erlands and with us.

ARTICLE LXIII.

The Lord’s Supper shall be administered at least every two
or three months.

FREQUENCY OF OBSERVING THE LORD’S SUPPER

In the consideration of this article we shall first consider its specific
contents and then append a few words regarding the preparatory and
applicatory sermons.

1. Frequency of administering the Lord’s Supper.

Some contend that in the early apostolic Church, the Lord’s Supper
was celebrated every day or at least every day of rest. This is also
Jansen’s position.* The contention is based on Acts 2:46; 20:7. We
do not believe that these passages prove this contention. Calvin him-
self, though he favored a weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper
according to his Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book IV, Chap.
XVII, 44), did not believe that the texts noted could be used to prove
that the Apostolic Church celebrated Communion every day or every
week. (Cf. Calvin’s Commentary on Acts.)

The Synod of Dort, 1574, held that the observation should take
place every two months. Following Synods endorsed this position.
But the Synod of Dort, 1578, added that the “Kruiskerken,” Churches
beneath the cross of persecution, which often had to meet secretly,
should celebrate the Lord’s Supper whenever it was convenient. This
was, of course, only a temporary ruling. As soon as persecution
ceased the general rule went into effect. The Synod of ’s Gravenhage,
1586, decided that if circumstances were favorable the Churches
should also celebrate the Lord’s Supper on Easter Sunday, the day
of Pentecost and on Christmas. Until the year 1905 the Church Order
provided: “The Lord’s Supper shall be observed, as much as possible,
once every two months. It will also tend to edification to have it on
Easter, Pentecost, and Christmas, where the conditions of the
Churches permit such.”

The Netherlands Churches altered this reading in 1905, and our
Synod of 1914 adopted this new redaction, so that Article 63 now
simply reads: “The Lord’s Supper shall be administered at least
every two or three months.”

In the Roman Church the people were used to frequent masses.
According to Rome the Sacraments are vehicles of grace, in and by
themselves. We should therefore not be surprised that frequent ob-
servations of Holy Communion were expected by the people, and that
even leaders as Calvin, at first at least, advocated weekly Communion
Services.

• cf. Jansen: Korte Verklaiing, etc., 1923, p. 282.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

265

In our Christian Reformed Churches, as is the case in the Reformed
Churches of Holland, the Lord's Supper is celebrated four times a
year, or every three months. In our opinion this is a well-timed ar-
rangement. To celebrate the Lord’s Supper very frequently might
detract somewhat from its sacredness and effectiveness. To celebrate
it less frequently, say once or twice a year, would rob the Churches
needlessly of a much needed blessing.

2. Preparatory and applicatory sermons.

The Church Order is silent regarding the preparatory and applica-
tory services. At the Wezelian Convention, however, it was already
stipulated that the Lord’s Supper should be announced two weeks be-
fore the celebration, in order that the members might prepare them-
selves aright, and in order that the Elders might call on the com-
municants living in their respective districts or wards. The Synod
of Dort ruled that the preparatory sermon should deal with matters
such as follow: Conversion, self-examination, reconciliation with God
and one’s neighbors, and kindred subjects. Furthermore, this Synod
held that just previous to the celebration the advantages and signifi-
cance of the Lord’s Supper should be explained. Since the Synod of
’s Gravenhage, 1586, these stipulations have been left out of the
Church Order, for the sake of brevity perhaps. But the preaching
of a preparatory sermon is nevertheless a fixed custom in our
Churches.

In regard to the post-communion applicatory sermon no specific
stipulations were ever incorporated into the Church Order.

Whether a Minister would preach on the Lord’s Day division in
order, or on a selected passage of God's Word appropriate to the
occasion, was left to the discretion of each Consistory. More than one
Synod ruled in this vein. Many Churches and Ministers desired to
preach through the whole catechism once a year, according to its 52
Lord’s Day divisions. A special applicatory sermon four times a year
interferred with this schedule. Many Ministers adapted the Lord's
Day material to the occasion, however. Others preferred to preach a
regular applicatory sermon. As stated above, the matter was left to
the wisdom of each Church.

Our Synod of 1912 decided that the celebration of the Lord's Supper
must always be preceded by a preparatory sermon and followed by
an applicatory sermon. (Cf. Acts of Synod, 1912, Art. 72,9. See also
our directory for Church Visitation.)

ARTICLE LX IV.

The administration of the Lords Supper shall take place only
where there is supervision of Elders, according to the ecclesias-
tical order and in a public gathering of the Congregation.

CHURCH ORGANIZATION REQUIRED FOR THE ADMINISTRA-
TION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER

In the consideration of this article we first devote some attention
to the original reading and content of Article 64, and then to the
ruling as it now reads.

266

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

1. The original reading of Article 64 and its significance.

Originally the present article read as follows: “Inasmuch as the
Evening-Prayers are found to be very fruitful in many places, each
Church in maintaining these will conduct them as is most edifying.
When there is a desire to discontinue them, this shall not be done
without the judgment of Classis.”

The Evening-Prayers were daily gatherings of the congregation in
the church building for Prayer. They might be called vesper prayer
meetings, held daily during the latter part of the afternoon, toward
evening. During the 16th century they were quite common in Re-
formed Churches in the Netherlands. The Roman Church observed
these Evening Prayers, and the Reformation did not set them aside
immediately. He who was in charge of the meeting would explain a
passage from the Bible and then lead in prayer.

Eventually objections were raised against the maintenance of these
daily services in the Churches. Synod of Dort, 1574, ruled that the
Evening-Prayers should not be introduced in Churches which until
then had not observed these daily gatherings; and in places in which
they were in use, they should be discontinued as soon as possible, and
that for three specific reasons: 1. In order that the regular Sunday
services might be attended more diligently; 2. In order that family
worship might be maintained more diligently; 3. In order that the
common prayers held on days of fasting might be used more dili-
gently and zealously.

Seemingly the people in many places relied on these vesper services
for their daily devotions to such an extent that it was difficult to
discontinue the practice. At least the Synod of Middelburg, 1581,
ruled that Evening-Prayers should not be introduced in places where
they were not observed, but that they should be discontinued in
Churches which maintained these daily meetings, without the advice
of Classis. These daily vesper services, inherited from the Roman
Church, did not disappear from the domain of the Reformation
Churches of Holland until the 17th century. The fact that it was im-
possible to gather the whole Church together for prayer daily, aside
from other considerations, made their discontinuance advisable.

During late years many Protestants in our own land have urged
that our church buildings should be open at all times for quiet medi-
tation and prayer. This idea has found many advocates, especially in
our larger cities with their constant rush and restlessness. In itself
this new practice is harmless, although it may strengthen the tendency
to regard our Churches as places of superior holiness. It is to be
understood that the sacred, consecrated atmosphere of our Church
auditoriums appeals to sensitive souls in this age of rush and sin
and materialism. “Spiritual retreats” are apt to promote prayer and
devotion. But we do believe that it is far better to stress individual
devotion to God in one’s own home and the promotion and improve-
ment of family worship. Furthermore, let us stress consecrated,
consistent Christian living in the midst of the world and upon its
busy marts. And let us continue to stress loyal attendance of the
whole congregation, as far as possible, at the regular Sabbath serv-
ices.

As all will realize, Article 64 as it read originally, was thoroughly
out of date when the Netherland Churches adopted a new redaction
of the Church Order in 1905. These Churches therefore substituted
the present 64th article. We copied their reading in 1914, and conse-
quently Article 64 now reads as it does.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

267

2. Why the Lord’s Supper is to be administered only where super-
vision is exercised.

Article 64 provides that the Lord’s Supper shall be administered
only there where there is supervision of Elders. In general this means
that believers must first be organized into a Church before Holy
Communion can be celebrated. This has been the position of our
Churches ever since the Reformation. In certain localities the number
of believers breaking with the Roman Church and joining the Refor-
mation movement was so small initially that Elders and Deacons
could not be appointed. This meant that regular organization was as
yet impossible, and that supervision and discipline could not be exer-
cised. Regarding such places Calvin judged, so Jansen informs us,*
that the services should be limited to the reading and explaining of
God’s Word. The Sacrament should not be administered there inas-
much as a definite Church organization was lacking, and supervision
and discipline could not be exercised. The Synod of Dort, 1574, ruled
in harmony with this opinion of Calvin. Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586,
provided that in places where the number of believers was too small
for regular organization, provisional, temporary Elders and Deacons
should be designated, before the Lord’s Supper was celebrated, in
order that supervision and control might not be lacking. In harmony
with these sentiments and decisions the present 64th article was
written into the Church Order.

There are indeed good reasons for this ruling. Christ dispenses the
Sacraments as signs and seals of the forgiveness of sin through His
Church, duly organized, and through the office-bearers appointed and
charged for this work. Unworthy participation is against His Will
and Word. The office-bearers bear responsibility regarding this mat-
ter. The Lord’s Supper should not be celebrated where control and
discipline is not exercised.

This does not mean that the Lord’s Supper can never be adminis-
tered in a place where the Church has not yet been organized. Small
groups of believers should be incorporated into neighboring Churches
as “branches” of these neighboring Churches. From time to time the
Consistories of such Churches can administer the Sacraments to such
groups. If at all possible one or more Elders or Deacons should be
chosen from among the members of such distant groups who are in
position to exercise supervision and who meet with the Consistory of
the neighboring Church regularly if possible, or, upon special request
of the Consistory, if the distance be too great for regular attendance.
Every Lord’s Day the group should meet for worship. If no office-
bearers can be appointed from among the unorganized group of be-
lievers, then one or two Elders should, if possible, accompany the
Minister when he goes to the distant group to administer the Sacra-
ments. However, if the Sacraments are administered upon decision
of the Consistory, the Minister may conduct the service without the
presence of any Elders. When circumstances permit the presence of
one or more Elders then their attendance is certainly desirable to as-
sist the Minister and to help supervise the whole service.

The same rule holds for groups of members of our Churches con-
fined in our institutions or hospitals and not well able to attend the
regular gatherings of the local congregation; for example, members
of our Churches who are patients at Bethesda Sanatorium at Denver.

The Synod of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, Leeu-
warden, 1920, Art. 25, decided regarding the administration of the

* Jansen: Korte ■V’erklaring', etc., 1923, p. 286.

268

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Lord’s Supper in institutions located within the domain of one of
their Churches to permit such a Church to administer the Lord’s
Supper to members of the Reformed Churches who are patients at
such institutions or who belong to their personnel and who cannot
very well attend the meeting of the congregation. The Consistory
must be represented at such services. Members of Churches, other
than the Reformed Churches, may be admitted to these special com-
munion services provided they cannot partake of the Lord’s Supper
in their own Churches. Such non-member guests must request the
privilege of participating from the Consistory in charge in due time,
and the Consistory must be assured that such guests are admitted to
the Lord’s Table in their own Churches and that they agree with the
Reformed Churches as to the fundamentals of the Christian religion,
that they are without reproach in their conduct, and that they submit
themselves to the supervision of the Consistory concerned as long as
they partake of the Lord’s Supper as non-member guests.

The Synod of Middelburg, 1933, Article 131, decided that it was
undesirable to introduce communion for the sick in their homes. Our
own Churches, Synod 1914, Article 19, deemed that the administration
of the Lord’s Supper to those who have not been able to come to
Church for years because of sickness, was permissible, provided that
the congregation be represented.

If ever a Consistory should receive a request for the privilege of
celebrating the Lord’s Supper in the home of sick or handicapped and
bound to his home for years, how should this Consistory proceed?
Let announcement be made to the Church when such a special com-
munion service is to take place and let those living nearest the resi-
dence of the sick party be invited to be present. Let the Consistory
make sure that at least part of its number can and will be present.

ARTICLE LXV.

Fimeral sermons or funeral services shall not be introduced.

FUNERAL SERMONS AND SERVICES

1. The nature of funeral sermons and services referred to
in this article.

The Church of Rome had ecclesiastical burials, funeral services
conducted by the Church in an official way. For those who died in
good standing with the Church, a Church service would be held. The
priest would speak over the body of the deceased; he would offer a
prayer in behalf of the dead person, the parishioners would sing a
farewell hymn, etc. The tolling or ringing of the church bell was
part of the ceremony. According to Jansen it served a two-fold pur-
pose in the Roman conception of things: It drove away the evil spirits;
it reminded people that they should pray for the dead person.

It stands to reason that the Reformed Churches disapproved of all
this. Official, ecclesiastical burials are unnecessary and uncalled for.
The Church as such has no functions to fulfill at a funeral. The
Church labors with and for the living. The living God has given His
Church a very definite charge, not at all for the dead. In the first
place because one’s death decides one’s eternal state. They who die
in the Lord need no further labors by the Church; they are not in
purgatory, but in heaven. And those who have died out of the Lord
are forever lost, and beyond the reach of the Church. In the second

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

269

place the Church has no charge of God regarding the burial of the
dead because this is a matter which can well be taken care of by
the relatives and friends of the deceased, and belongs to their domain
and responsibility.

Moreover, the Reformed Churches frowned on Church funerals and
sermons because of all the abuses that went with these burials. A
whole body of superstitious notions and practices had sprung up
around these Roman funerals and many people were attached to
these customs, relying on them rather than on the only saving grace
of God in Christ.

Now to be sure, no Reformed Church taking official charge of a
burial during the first days of the Reformation attached unbiblical
value to the address or sermon, and to the prayers offered at a fu-
neral. Nor did the ringing of the church bells have the pagan, super-
stitious significance which it did have for the Church of Rome. But
the people in many instances did attach superstitious value to these
activities. Thus it is to be understood that one of the first Synods,
Dort, 1574, ruled that funeral sermons should be discontinued as soon
as possible, and that localities which had not yet introduced them
should not do so, in order to avoid the danger of superstition. Synod
of Dort, 1578, judged likewise, and added that in places where these
funeral sermons could not be discontinued as yet they should not be
regular sermons but merely extemporaneous words of admonition.
This Synod did not even favor prayer at these funeral “services”,
doubtless because many people would attach superstitious value to
such prayers in behalf of the dead person. The Synod of Middelburg,
1581, decided that funeral sermons should not be introduced in places
where such had not as yet been done, and that they should be discon-
tinued in the most suitable way in those places in which they had
already been introduced. This decision became Article 65 of the old
Church Order. Thus the ruling stood until 1905, when the Holland
Churches accepted the simple reading as we also adopted it in 1914:
“Funeral sermons and funeral services shall not be introduced.”

2. Our present customs apDraised.

Our Churches certainly do not maintain Church funerals. The
solemnities which we ordinarily observe regarding the burial of our
dead are not Church funerals in the technical sense. They do not
violate the letter of Article 65, and are not ecclesiastical burials
(kerkelyke begrafenissen). The Consistories are not in charge of
these funerals but the relatives are. If our homes were large enough,
or if funeral homes were large enough we would not, and should not
resort to the Church building at all. At our funerals, moreover, the
Minister does not preach a sermon, he does not administer the Word
of God officially and to the congregation of God. He only addresses
the mourning relatives and their friends appropriately. As we bury
our dead, we pause for reflection, instruction, and comfort. The Min-
ister of the deceased is usually asked to speak with these needs in
mind. Many Ministers give their remarks the form of a sermon.
This should not be done and this should not be expected. Funeral
sermons and funeral services shall not be introduced, so the Church
Order stipulates.

This latter remark leads us to say that Article 65 is not an obso-
lete, antiquated ruling. It is true that the superstitious customs and
notions of Rome are hardly known to us anymore. But the article
constantly and officially commits our Churches against ecclesiastical
burials and their evils. Furthermore, Article 65 should be a constant
warning to us against usages and dangers which might easily creep

270

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

into our circles regarding the burial of our dead. And let it not be
overlooked that though we have no funeral services officially, yet un-
officially we have introduced something of the kind. Confer what was
said regarding the funeral addresses by many Ministers. They are
as to form very often actually “sermons.” Now this surely is not
serious, but neither is it advisable and practical. It also happens
that people insist on a “church funeral,” when their home can ade-
quately accommodate the relatives and friends. Why? Is there per-
haps a lingering bit of superstition in this demand?

It should be noted that although we have no funeral services in
the real and official sense of the word, that yet, inasmuch as our
church buildings are often used for funeral addresses, the Consistories
do have a voice in matters. That is to say, when our Churches permit
their buildings to be used for “funeral services”1 they have a right
to stipulate certain conditions if they so desire. Our Consistories
need not permit innovations which they might deem out of place.
When the use of our church auditoriums is requested for funeral ad-
dresses, we have a right to grant the request upon condition, for in-
stance, that unconverted, modernistic singers shall not take part in
the “service,” or that excessive floral displays be omitted, etc. A
wreath, or a spray or two of flowers on the casket does not offend.
But should we carry large numbers of floral offerings into our church
buildings when used for funeral addresses? Why?

Doubtless it would be better if we would cease using the expression
“funeral sermons” when referring to our funeral addresses. Likewise
it would be better if we would speak of burials rather than of “fu-
neral services” inasmuch as we have neither funeral sermons nor
funeral services in the ordinary sense of these expressions. Many
denominations have both funeral services and funeral sermons in the
real sense of the word. So do the lodges of our land.

Our Synod of 1888 held that when our church buildings are used
for burials it is a matter of indifference whether or not the corpse
is brought into the building. Each Consistory can decide this matter
as it sees fit.

The tolling of the church bell at burials is entirely unobjectionable
for our day and age. It is a solemn usage reminding us of the reality
and solemnity of death.

What should be our attitude toward cremation ? The Bible does not
forbid the burning of dead bodies, but honorable burial was the rule
in both Old Testament and New Testament times. The patriarchs
were buried. God Himself buried Moses. Lazarus rested in a grave.
Our Lord Himself underwent burial, not burning. In the ancient
apostolic Church burial was the common custom. On the other hand,
many pagan peoples burned the bodies of their dead. And the only
instances in which burning is prescribed by God for Israel is in the
case of great sinners, as a special condemnation of such sinners on
God’s part. (Cf. Lev. 20:14; 21:9; Joshua 7:15.) Many people today
favor cremation from materialistic unbelieving considerations. Death
to these ends all. Christian burial, at the other hand, is expressive of
the hope and expectation of the resurrection. The body is sown in
corruption, as a seed is sown, but it will be raised incorruptible.
(I Cor. 15.)

Through circumstances wholly beyond the control of the publishers and
of the authors, the publication of this book has been delayed for several
months. In the mean time Synod of 1940 has revised Article 65, so that it
now reads: Funerals are not ecclesiastical, but family affairs, and. should
be conducted accordingly.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

271

ARTICLE LX VI.

In time of war , pestilence, national calamities, and other great
afflictions, the pressure of which is felt throughout the
Churches, it is fitting that the Classes proclaim a Day of Prayer.

DAYS OF PRAYER
1. Former rulings and usages.

Originally Article 66 read as follows: “In times of war, pestilence,
depression, persecution of Churches, and other general calamities, the
Ministers of the Churches shall request the government that upon its
authority and order public fast and prayer days be appointed and
hallowed.”

As is well known, the Roman Church made much of days of fasting
and prayer. There was much externalism in the observance of these
days in the Roman Church. This the Reformation Churches con-
demned. But they saw much good in special days of fasting and
prayer. They believed that when circumstances and times were trying
believers should humble themselves before God and pray for relief.
The Churches therefore maintained days of fasting and prayer. But
by reason of persecution united action was difficult at first. The in-
dividual Churches would hold their own days of fasting and prayer
whenever the Consistories felt that such days should be observed.
Jansen informs us that at first these days would be observed when a
new Minister had to be called, but later the usage was applied to
emergency conditions as referred to above.* This same authority
informs us also that when a fast and prayer day was proclaimed the
congregation would come to the church upon the week-day appointed
and would sometimes remain in church all day at the same time re-
fraining from eating and drinking. Two sermons would be preached
and between the sermons passages from the Bible would be read to
the gathering.

It will be noted that the Churches initiated the observances of
these days apart from the government. But when the Reformation
had gained considerable head-way, and when the government was
sympathetic toward the Reformed Churches, the government would
be requested to proclaim these days of fasting and prayer. Conse-
quently the original 65th article reads as it does.

It therefore appears that our Church Order originally provided for
days of fasting and prayer, and not merely for days of prayer as it
does now.

According to the “Christelyke Encyclopaedic,” the 16th century
Reformation broke with the meritorious fasts of the Roman Churches
and returned to Scriptural fasting, which aims to repress and curb
the flesh and constitutes a spiritual exercise. Calvin especially, so
this same source tells us, warned against the Roman practice of
fasting. Fasting should be practiced to repress the flesh and to pre-
pare for prayer and humiliation before God. But during the 17th and
18th centuries the custom of fasting fell completely into disuse. It
was revived for a brief period during the days of the Secession of
1834 and following years, because of persecutions experienced, but
soon fell into disuse once more.**

The Synod of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands 1905 re-

• Jansen: Xorte Verklarlng, etc., 1923, p. 289.

** Christelyk Encyclopaedic : Article “Vasten”.

272

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

vised Article 66 and among other changes left the provision for fast-
ing out. In 1914 our Synod did likewise.

Whether the discontinuance of fasting in our circles can be defended
from every aspect is a question which is certainly open for debate,
but which we are not now considering. But it is a question worthy
of serious consideration.

2. Conditions which warrant special Days of Prayer.

We have our annual Day of Prayer for Crops. This Day of Prayer
is observed every second Wednesday in the month of March. But be-
sides this regular Day of Prayer the present article provides for spe-
cial Days of Prayer. In days of great affliction such as brought
about by war, pestilence, and other national calamities, it is fitting,
Article 66 declares, that Days of Prayer be proclaimed. The article
refers to afflictions, “the presence of which is felt throughout the
Churches/' This does not refer to all the Churches of our denomina-
tion, scattered as they are from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but rather
to the Churches of certain Classes. For the Churches of one sector
may be visited by calamities which are not felt at all by Churches of
another region. Yet this fact should not keep the Churches affected
from holding special prayer services. Moreover the article authorizes
the Classes to proclaim these special Days of Prayer. Doubtless Synod
of 1914 adopted this reading with a purpose. For thus each group of
Churches can act for itself. This method of procedure is altogether
proper for a denomination the Churches of which are widely scattered
over a large territory. This does not mean that Synod cannot pre-
scribe a general Day of Prayer for all the Churches in case of calami-
ties which are general. Nor does the article mean to say that indi-
vidual Churches may not set aside special Days of Prayer when they
see fit to do so.

Hie conclusion of the present article as maintained by us differs
somewhat from the conclusion of the Holland Churches. We say:
“In time of war, . . . , it is fitting that the Classes proclaim a Day
of Prayer/' The Reformed Churches of the Netherlands say, “In time
of war, . . . , a Day of Prayer shall be appointed by the Classis ap-
pointed for this purpose by the last general Synod." In Holland
therefore a Classis is designated by each general Synod, which is
charged to appoint special Days of Prayer for all the Churches of
the denomination whenever this Classis may deem such a step advis-
able. Synod of 's Gravenhage, 1914, favored holding such special Days
of Prayer on Sabbath days rather than on week days. But this ques-
tion was left to the Classis charged with this matter. We, by our
reading of Article 66, have made the matter of appointing special
Days of Prayer a classical matter. Doubtless this was done because
our Churches cover a wide extent of territory, and consequently our
Classes often represent various needs.

It is worthy of note, that the Churches of Holland delegate this
matter, not to a committee as we would be apt to do, but to a Classis.
This is in harmony with the principle that Church governmental mat-
ters which can be acted upon directly through the governing bodies
themselves should not be delegated to committees.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

273

ARTICLE LXVII.

The Churdhes shall observe , in addition to the Sunday, also
Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, Pentecost, the
Day of Prayer, the National Thanksgiving Day, and Old and
New Year’s Day.

SPECIAL DAYS TO BE OBSERVED

1. The original position of the Reformed Churches regarding
special days.

During the early days of the Reformation some Reformed localities
observed only Sunday. All special days sanctioned and revered by
Rome were set aside. Zwingli and Calvin both encouraged the re-
jection of all ecclesiastical festive days. In Geneva all special days
were discontinued as soon as the Reformation took a firm hold in
that city. Already before the arrival of Calvin in Geneva this had
been accomplished under the leadership of Farel and Viret. But Cal-
vin agreed heartily. And Knox, the Reformer of Scotland, shared
these same convictions, he being a disciple of Calvin in Geneva. Con-
sequently the Scottish Churches also banned the Roman sacred days.

These eminent Reformers took this stand for the following reasons:
The festival days are not ordained of God but are a human invention;
they minimize Sunday, the God-ordained weekly day of rest; they
lead to paganistic celebrations and promote licentiousness.* In view
of present day celebrations of days as Christmas and Easter by the
general public and many believers it must be said that the conten-
tions of the Reformers as to this last point were certainly correct.
Present day celebration of these days is more pagan than Christian.
Neither can it be denied that the observance of these days is but an
invention of man, and that many people hold these festivals in higher
esteem than Sunday.

Considering the position of the Reformers, we are not surprised
that the Synod of Dort, 1574, held that the weekly Sabbath alone
should be observed, and that the observance of all other days should
be discouraged. This same Synod, however, also decided that the Min-
isters should preach about the birth of Christ on the Sunday preced-
ing Christmas day, and Ministers were also permitted to preach on
the resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday and on the outpourinsr of
the Spirit on Pentecost Sunday.** The “tweede feestdagen,” i.e., sec-
ond festival days, still observed in Holland on December 26 and on
the days following Easter and Pentecost, were set aside and ignored
completely by this Synod.

2. Why the provisions of this article were included in the
Church Order

Consulting the present article we find that it prescribes the obser-
vation of several special or festival days. How is this to be explained ?
The government of Holland was loath to set all the Christian festivals
aside inasmuch as many of the people delighted in these days for the
sake of their pleasures and because the government officials and em-
ployees hated to part with a number of holidays which afforded them
rest and recreation. Rather than see these days given over to the
danger of abuse and frivolity, the Churches accommodated themselves

• Bouwman: Ger. Kerlcredit, Vol. II, 1934, p. 486.

•• Rutgers, Acta der Nat. Syn., p. 142, quoted by Bouwman, Ger.
Kerkrecht, Vol. IL 1934. p. 487.

274

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

to circumstances and began to celebrate these days after a fashion.
Thus the Synod of Dort, 1578, Article 75, declared in substance that
it would be desirable to celebrate Sunday only according to God’s
ordinance. But, inasmuch as Christmas Day and the day following
upon Christmas, as well as the days following upon Easter and Pente-
cost and in some places also New Year’s Day, and Ascension Day
were legal holidays by authority of the governments, the Ministers
should preach appropriately on these days in order to turn a fruitless
and harmful idleness (lediggang) into a holy and profitable exercise.
Furthermore, Ministers of cities which observed other festivals by
authority of local governments, should hold services on these days
also. At the same time this Synod urged that the Churches should
work toward the setting aside of all festive-days, except Christmas,
Easter, and Pentecost.*

Subsequent Synods made like decisions and concessions. The great
Synod of Dort, 1618-19, adopted the following reading of Article 67:
“The Churches shall keep, besides Sunday, also Christmas, Easter and
Pentecost, with the days following upon these days. And whereas
most cities and provinces of the Netherlands also keep the day of
(Christ’s) Circumcision, and the Ascension of Christ, the Ministers
shall in all places in which such is not yet being done, advocate the
matter (zullen arbeiden) so that these localities may conform them-
selves to the others.”

We note that the early Reformed Synods yielded increasingly to
pressure from without regarding the observation of “Christian festi-
vals.” The government of the Netherlands made something like legal
holidays out of these festivals, and so the Churches, although not
favoring the observation of these days, for practical reasons ruled
as they did. To prevent people from spending these days in worldi-
ness they introduced Church services for these festive occasions.

The Synod of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, 1905,
adopted the following redaction of Article 67: “The congregations
shall keep, besides Sunday, also Christmas, Easter, Pentecost and As-
cension Day. The observation of the second festival days is left to
the freedom of the Churches.”

It will be noted that our redaction of 1914 includes several more
special days, namely, Good Friday, the Day of Prayer (for Crops,
second Wednesday in March) the National Thanksgiving Day, and
Old and New Year’s Day. These days had all received a semi-official
standing in our Churches. There is much to be said for their obser-
vation. And so it was only logical that we should include them in
Article 67.

Regarding Good Friday, the Holland Churches have not included it
with its festive days mentioned in Article 67. This was seemingly
done because Good Friday is celebrated superstitiously by the various
Churches. It is often elevated above Sunday, especially by the Roman
Church. The Lord’s Supper is celebrated on Good Friday instead of
on the Lord’s Day as was done by the Apostolic Churches. Hence
the Reformed Churches hesitated to mention the day officially, al-
though many of these Churches hold an evening service on Good
Friday. We keep the day officially. It is indeed a very meaningful
day on the Christian Church calendar. But we should also guard our-
selves against an unwholesome, unscriptural overemphasis here. We
should guard against Roman and Lutheran practices which border on

* Acta, Synode Dordrecht, 1578, Act. 75. Kerkelyk Handboekje, G. Ph.
Zalsman, Kampen, 1882.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

275

things superstitious. And let us not overestimate celebrations which
are often superficial and external by men and women who ordinarily
manifest very little knowledge of and appreciation for the atoning
death of our Lord and Savior. We would appreciate all Scriptural
and sincere commemoration of Christ’s death and suffering. But we
would also note that leading modernists are often foremost in the
celebration of Good Friday, whereas modernists deny the heart and
core of Christ’s suffering and death.

Our Churches, and also some of us as individuals, have at various
times petitioned our government to proclaim a Day of Prayer annual-
ly. Thus far this has not brought results. Nevertheless, we as
Churches observe the day. However, it is to be regretted that we
do not keep a day of prayer to invoke God’s blessings on our agricul-
tural endeavors. At most we keep an hour of prayer. The day of
prayer has indeed shrunk to small proportions.

It is doubtless advisable that we continue to follow the method of
introducing our petitional prayers and our prayers of thanksgiving
at these special services by an appropriate sermon and that the Min-
ister then leads the Church in prayer. We do not believe that the
introduction of prayer meeting methods for these special services
would be an advancement. Needless to say, as individuals, as families
and as groups of believers, we should not neglect prayer and praise
for these special needs on these special days.

Watch hour services for New Year’s eve and sunrise services on
Easter morning are indeed harmless in themselves, although they
may foster reliance on external things. It is a fact well known to
Church historians that as spiritual life begins to wane, formalistic
and extraordinary observances begin to increase. He who serves God
in Spirit and with devotion will have little need for the unusual, and
for constant innovations. And not to be forgotten, the regular serv-
ices of the Church, held at the regular hours, which all, old and
young can attend, should never be crowded upon the background.

3. The position of our Churches as to the weekly Lord’s Day.

Our Churches observe first and foremost, as the present article also
indicates, the Lord’s Day or Sunday. We believe that the Sabbath
(Day of Rest) should be kept, not as a matter of good policy merely,
as Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and the majority of present day
Protestants seem to hold, but by commandment of God.

We hold that the whole decalogue, that all the Ten Commandments
are still in force. The Ten Commandments are God’s summary of His
universal laws. They hold for the New Testament period as well as
for the Old Testament period. The fourth commandment is no excep-
tion to this rule. Of course, the Israelitish, ancient cloak in which
the fourth commandment in common with the other commandments
is dressed is not essential to the heart of the commandment. We
maintain that one day out of every seven, according to a definite cycle
of days, must be set aside for service of and devotion to God. That
is the abiding principle. And this abiding principle is not Jewish but
universal. God hallowed the Sabbath day unto Himself even before
sin entered the world.

We hold that it is the Christian's privilege and duty on “the day
of rest (to) diligently attend the Church of God, to learn in God’s
Word, to use the Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord and to
give Christian alms.” (Heidelberg Catechism, qu. 103.) At the same
time we believe it to be our duty to refrain from all unnecessary
activities which divert our attentions and which tend to make the
day common.

276

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

The great Synod of Dort, 1618-19, adopted six points regarding the
Sabbath which, translated almost verbatim, read as follows:

1. In the fourth commandment of God’s Law there is a ceremonial
and a moral element.

2. The rest on the seventh day after the creation, and the strict
observance of this day with which the Jewish people were charged
particularly, was ceremonial.

3. That a definite and appointed day has been set aside to the
service of God, and that for this purpose as much rest is required as
is necessary for the service of God and for hallowed contemplation,
this element is moral.

4. The Sabbath of the Jews having been set aside, Christians are
in duty bound to hallow the Day of the Lord solemnly.

5. This day has always been kept in the early Church since the
time of the Apostles.

6. This day must be so consecrated unto the service of God that
upon it men rest from all servile labors, except those required by
charity and present necessities, and likewise from all such recreations
as prevent the service of God.*

These six points were adopted by our own Synod of 1881. And ac-
cording to our Synod of 1926 (Art. 136, pp. 191, 192) they must be
considered doctrinal in their nature and hence binding and also in
full accord with the fundamental principles expressed in Lord’s Day
38 of the Catechism, to the effect that the fourth commandment also
applies to the New Testament Church in its observance of the day
of rest and worship. Synod also declared that these six points are an
official interpretation of our confession and not an addition to our
Forms of Unity.

ARTICLE LXVIII.

The Ministers shall on Sunday explain briefly the sum of
Christian Doctrine comprehended in the Heidelberg Catechism
so that as much as possible the explanation shall be anmuilly
completed , according to the division of the Catechism itself , for
that purpose .

CATECHISM PREACHING

1. The purpose and value of catechism preaching.

The Heidelberg Catechism is a brief, practical summary of the way
of salvation as revealed in the Bible. It covers the whole field of
doctrine, from beginning to end, systematically. The Catechism is not
something which the Churches have added to the Bible, but it is a
short, systematic, practical summary of the doctrine of salvation as
revealed in the Bible. The contents of the Catechism are gleaned
from the Bible and are based on the Bible. Our Churches hold that
believers should have a clear understanding of the way in which God
saves His people. The teachings concerning man’s fall into sin, the
degree of his sinfulness, the hopelessness of his condition in and by
himself, the sovereignty of God’s redeeming grace in Christ, the Deity
of Christ and its necessity, the origin, nature and purpose of the

• Cf. Post-Acta. 164th Session, Synod 1618-19.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

277

Church, concerning these and many other things God has something
very definite to say in His Word. Consequently God's people should
take close note of all that God teaches them. Let them remember
that: “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness:
that the Man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto
every good work.” (II Tim. 3:16,17.) Now by preaching the truth
of God constantly and systematically according to the summary of
the Heidelberg Catechism the congregation of God receives regular
instruction in all the fundamentals of the Christian faith as revealed
in the Bible. It is true that apart from Catechism preaching a Min-
ister might indoctrinate his congregation according to God’s revela-
tions. But Catechism preaching assures us that all Ministers will
preach the whole truth of God, and that not according to their per-
sonal conceptions, but according to the common conception of all the
Churches. We are safe in saying that if it were not for Catechism
preaching, certain truths of God’s Word would be seldom touched
upon in our sermons. All Ministers are but men, and all men are apt
to be one-sided and forgetful. The preaching of God’s Word accord-
ing to the summary of that Word found in the Catechism safeguards
the Churches against the danger of partial and one-sided preaching.
And at the same time it offers the Churches some security against
unbiblical, erroneous presentations. Every Minister must be loyal in
his interpretations to the Word of God as reproduced in the Catechism.

Catechism preaching, to be sure, is doctrinal preaching. We need
doctrinal preaching. Every believer should be a well informed Chris-
tian. One who is not well informed as to the main teachings of Holy
Writ cannot be a strong Christian. And especially in our day and
age of shallow Christianity and self-conceived, self-constructed con-
ceptions, a thorough understanding of God’s truth is very necessary.
Besides, every doctrine of Holy Writ, rightly understood, is full of
comfort for the believer. We need this comfort in this world of dis-
appointments and conflicts.

Sometimes it has been objected that Catechism preaching is the
setting aside of the Word of God. It is claimed to be preaching of
man’s Word. This presentation is utterly false for every Lord’s Day
division of the Catechism is the summary of several Bible passages.
Virtually therefore, the Minister who preaches on a certain Lord’s
Day division of the Catechism is preaching on several passages of
God’s Word. It may be said in this connection that Catechism ser-
mons should be so constructed that the congregation sees very clearly
that the truths embodied in the Catechism are indeed but reproduc-
tions of God’s own Word. When we preach a Catechism sermon, we
are preaching the Word of God just as well as if we preach on a
certain text or passage taken directly from the Bible. Only, in case
of catechism preaching, one expounds and applies the Word of God
according to a summary of that Word adopted by all the Churches
and agreed to by all the members of our Churches.

2. The origin of catechism preaching.

The custom of preaching God’s Word at one of the Sunday sendees,
according to the summary of the Heidelberg Catechism is of old
standing. The Holland Churches adopted the usage from Reformed
Churches of other countries. We hear of the practice as early as 1566.
In 1574 a question reached the Synod of Dort, asking whether it
would not be advisable to make some good sermons on the Catechism.
These were doubtlessly desired for the people to read and perhaps to

278

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

serve the Ministers as guides in constructing catechism sermons. And
in 1578 the Synod of Dort decided that after the Lord’s Supper had
been served on Sunday afternoons the Minister should proceed to
preach on the Catechism as usual. However, the first binding decision
for all the Churches we find in the Church Order of the Synod of
1586, ’s Gravenhage, Article 61. “The Ministers shall everywhere on
Sunday, ordinarily in the afternoon sermon, explain briefly the sum-
mary of Christian doctrine contained in the Catechism, which at this
time has been accepted in the Netherland Churches, in such a way
that this explanation may be finished annually, following the division
of the Catechism itself as made for this purpose.”

Our present reading of Article 68 is a redaction of this original.
The only change which was made in this article by the Churches of
Holland in 1905 was the provision that the explanation should be
finished annually, “as much as possible” (zooveel mogelijk). Jansen
is slightly in error when he states that the Synod of Dort, 1618-19,
inserted the phrase, “which at this time has been accepted in the
Netherland Churches” (die tegenwoordig in de Nederlandsche Kerken
aangenomen is). This phrase was in the article from the day of its
first adoption. (1586.)

Our redaction of 1914 omits this phrase as being unnecessary and
out of place in a Church Order for our Churches here in America.
Our 1914 revision also omitted the provision that these catechism
sermons should ordinarily be preached on Sunday afternoon. This
matter is left to the judgment of each Church. Many of our Churches
now have evening services instead of afternoon services, and find it
more suitable to preach according- to the Catechism in the morning
service, when minds are fresh and heavier material seems more in
place. Others doubtlessly favor preaching the Catechism sermon at
the second service no matter when it is held. Each Church is free in
this matter.

To make clear which Catechism is meant our redaction of 1914
also added the word: “Heidelberg.” Moreover, we also decided that
the Catechism should be covered in one year’s time, “as much as
possible.”

At first the people did not take to catechism preaching. However,
as appears from certain decisions taken by Synods in regard to this
matter, perhaps many refrained from attending the service at which
the catechism was preached because they did not care to go to Church
twice a day. The Catechism was always preached in the afternoon
service as the original article stipulated. Many had joined the Refor-
mation, but not sincerely. They went along with the crowd. Others
were not as spiritually minded as they should have been. The Roman
Church was very lax and legalistic. This spirit many maintained after
they had officially broken with Rome. These felt that one service a
day was enough. And they were adverse to doctrinal studies perhaps.
Let it also be remembered that the Reformed Churches were really
the official, state-recognized, Churches of Holland. This gave them
special favor and protection, but also handicapped them in the exer-
cise of discipline and it opened the doors of the Churches to many
evils. A “volkskerk”, a Church seeking to include all the people
within its walls, is making a mistake, for all are not God’s people,
and it is bound to suffer for its error.

Some of the complaints which reached the Synod of Dort, 1618-19,
regarding non-attendance at Catechism preaching and its causes are
the following: failure of Ministers to hold afternoon services at
which the Catechism sermon could be preached; many people insisted

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

279

on working or playing on Sunday afternoon; some Ministers had two
or more Churches to serve and could not attend to their flocks prop-
erly; the Remonstrants (Arminians) were opposed to Catechism
preaching; the government failed to maintain Sunday as a day of
rest and permitted field labor.

Briefly stated the Synod took the following decisions to curb the
evil and to improve the situation:

1. It reiterated the decision of the Synod of 1586 regarding Cate-
chism preaching. Ministers who should fail to do their duty in this
respect would be censured. Catechism sermons should be brief and
understandable to the common people.

2. No Minister should neglect to maintain this service because the
attendance is small. Though only the Minister’s own family should
be in attendance, he should proceed. This would be a good example.

3. The government was to be asked to forbid all unnecessary Sun-
day labor, and especially sports, drinking parties, etc., so that people
might learn to hallow the Sabbath day and come to Church regularly.

4. Every Church should have its own Minister as much as possible
and unnecessary combinations of two or more Churches should be
severed, or else the Catechism sermons should be maintained at least
every other Sunday afternoon.

5. Church Visitors were charged to take close note of this matter
regarding every Church. Negligent, unwilling Ministers had to be
reported to Classis for censure. Confessing members who refused to
attend the catechism sermons seemingly had to be censured also.*

3. Dangers to be avoided.

Catechism preaching is beyond a doubt one of our strongholds. Con-
sequently we must guard it against any and all dangers which
threaten its continuance or which may help to bring the custom into
disfavor.

Ministers should always see to it that their catechism sermons are
really sermons. They should not be class room lectures on some theo-
logical question, however important. A catechism sermon should be
an exposition and application of God’s Word just as every other
sermon.

Furthermore Ministers should avoid abstract Catechism preaching
which goes over the heads and beside the hearts of the congregation.
Let our catechism sermons be vital and understandable even to the
simplest minds.

Again, sermons that go into great detail, so that two, three or more
sermons are required for one Lord’s Day division should be avoided.
Let the rule of Article 68 be observed. If our fathers, having more
time and moving much slower than we, found it best to cover the
Catechism in one year’s time, then in all likelihood it is best for us
also.

Should a text from the Bible be chosen and quoted together with
the Lord’s Day division of the Catechism as text for the sermon ? No.
This practice may lead some people to think that a catechism sermon
is really not a sermon on the Word of God. This erroneous concep-
tion should not be encouraged in the least. Furthermore, no Lord’s
Day division of the Catechism is based on a single Bible passage. If
a Minister desires to quote the Biblical foundation for any given
Lord’s Day division, then he shall have to quote a good many passages.

• Cf. H. Kaajan, De Pro- Acta der Dordsche Synode, pp. 154-167, quoted
by Jansen, Xorte Verklarlngf, etc., 1923, p. 295-6.

280

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

And in some instances the doctrine deduced is not found in so many
words in any Bible passage, but is rather the legitimate conclusion
based on certain facts clearly revealed.

We deem that it is better, far better, for the Minister to quote and
interpret Scripture in the body of the sermon so that the congregation
feels instinctively that the Minister is really bringing them God’s own
Word.

At the beginning of the catechism sermon, as he announces his ser-
mon, let the Minister use some statement as follows: “The Word of
God, congregation, as I expound and apply it for you at this time, is
summarized for us in Lord’s Day division .... of our Catechism/’
Then let him read the Lord’s Day division.

We have heard of instances in which the Minister would read a
text taken directly from the Bible, but he would omit announcing and
reading the Lord’s Day division. This is of course all wrong. We
suppose that this was done to satisfy some who objected to catechism
preaching. But we gain nothing in the long run by yielding to mis-
taken notions. Rather let us labor to remove such mistaken concep-
tions. This cannot be done effectively and fairly by preaching camou-
flaged catechism sermons. In such a case as this it is better to face
the issue squarely than to dilly-dally.

We should also be careful not to omit the catechism sermon in
favor of a free-choice-text sermon without due cause. Some have
permitted the Catechism to rest during the pre-Christmas season or
perhaps during Lent. This is unnecessary and contrary to the present
article of the Church Order. Let the exceptions which we make to
the adopted rule be few and well founded.

Already in 1902 our Synod found it necessary to admonish the
Churches as follows: “With a view to dangers from without that
threaten sound doctrine, and in consideration of the great need of,
and the very meager interest in the regular development of dog-
matical truths, Synod emphasizes the time-honored custom of cate-
chism preaching, and the Classes are urged to give proper attention
to this matter, that the regular consideration of the catechism may
be observed.” *

ARTICLE LX EX.

In the Churches only the 150 Psalms of David and the collec-
tion of hymns for Church use , approved and adopted by Synod,
shall be sung\. However , while the singing of the Psalms in
divine worship is a requirement , the use of the approved hymns
is left to the freedom of the Churches.

PSALMS AND HYMNS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP

In the consideration of this article we first of all speak briefly
concerning its historical background. Then we shall indicate the spe-
cific significance of the article as it now reads. Finally, the matter
of choir singing and the use of instrumental music for congregational
worship will be taken up.

* A£ts P02. Art. 103 and 110, translation by Stuart and Hoeksema:
Church Order, under Art. 68.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

281

1. Historical background of this article.

In the ancient Church the singing of psalms was undoubtedly com-
mon. Psalm singing was well known to the Jews as they worshipped
in their synagogues and so we are not surprised to find this practice
back in the early Christian Churches. It cannot be said with certainty
that the early Churches also used hymns in congregational worship,
although there are many things which seem to point in this direction.
However, Augustine tells us that in his time the North African
Churches sang only the psalms. And the counsel of Bracatara, 563,
decided that no hymns should be used in the Churches besides the
psalms and hymns taken directly from the Old Testament and New
Testament. Eventually, however, psalm singing diminished. Gregory
the Great, bishop of Rome from 690 to 604, substituted choir singing
for congregational singing. This move relegated the psalms still far-
ther upon the background, as stands to reason.

Zwingli did not approve of singing in Church services. Perhaps
Roman ritualism and its extemalism drove him to this extreme and
unwarranted position. We may be thankful that the other leader of
the Reformed Churches did not share this view. In the Roman Church
the choir sang and the congregation listened. The people did not sing.
This met with disapproval on Calvin’s part. He restored congrega-
tional singing and silenced the choir. He believed that all the be-
lievers should praise God in song. A number of psalms, verified by
Clement Marot and Beza were introduced by him. The melodies were
written by Louis Bourgeois and Maitre Pierre at Calvin’s request. Not
only were the children taught to sing these psalms in the schools,
but some of the older folks also received instruction in the singing
of psalms.

The example of the Genevan Reformer found a ready following in
all Reformed Churches, although the Zwinglian Churches did not in-
troduce congregational singing until the close of the century.

The Reformed Churches of Holland first sang the “Souterliedekens”
of Willem van Zuylen van Nijevelt. These were versifications of the
psalms collected and in all likelihood also written by the author.
( Souter-salter-psalter. )

In 1566 the Rev. Petrus Datheen published his book of psalms.
These psalms by Datheen became very popular. They appealed to
the heart of the believer. This versification was modeled after the
French edition of Marot and Beza. The Convention of Wezel recom-
mended the Dathenian Psalms for Church services.

In 1680 a new rendering by Mamix van St. Aldegonde made its
appearance. The psalms by Mamix were original versifications. In
many respects they were superior to those written by Datheen, but
they were less popular. Datheen’s rendering, though less accurate,
spoke to the hearts of God’s people. Synod of Middelburg, 1581,
stipulated that the Psalms of David should be sung in the Churches
but no longer specified that the Psalms of Datheen should be used.

The Synods favored the Mamix psalms. When the Synod of Dort,
1618-19, met it did specify psalm singing as previous Synods had
done, but it did not choose between Datheen and Mamix. Seemingly
it did not care to stir up discord over this matter. The people in
general still much preferred Datheen’s work. The psalms of Mamix
were consequently never put into general use. It was not until the
year 1775 that the Dathenian psalms were finally set aside. In that
year the present Psalter was introduced by order of the States Gen-
eral.—Almost needless to say, the fact that this body introduced

282

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

the present Psalter in Holland, points to a state domination in ec-
clesiastical affairs which deserves condemnation. — The committee
which compiled the present Dutch psalter drew from three sources:
from a versification by Hendrik Ghijsen of Amsterdam; from another
by an association named “Laus Deo, Salus populo”; and from a ver-
sification by J. E. Voet, M. D., of ’s Gravenhage. There are serious
faults attached to this Dutch psalter. Doctrinal, exegetical, and
aesthetical objections have rightfully been raised against this versi-
fication, but no new versification has as yet been attempted or ordered.

Our own Churches here in America have made changes more fre-
quently during recent years, not as to the psalter used in our Dutch
services, however. For these services we have constantly used the
present Dutch Psalter. But as to the psalms sung in our English
services changes have been made. The True Reformed Protestant
Dutch Church in 1886 adopted as its book of praise, the Metrical Ver-
sion of the Psalter used by the United Presbyterian Church of North
America. This Church united with the Christian Reformed Church
in 1890 and became known as Classis Hackensack. The Psalter re-
ferred to became the book of praise for our Churches. This book also
contained fifty-two hymns arranged and numbered agreeably to the
fifty- two Lord’s Day sections of the Heidelberg Catechism; the Songs
of Mary, Zacharias. At the time of the union of 1890 it was under-
stood and stipulated that the Churches of Classes Hackensack were
permitted to use these hymns. This Psalter was the official book of
praise for our Churches until 1914, when Synod decided to adopt the
new U. P. Psalter. This Psalter had been composed by a joint com-
mittee of nine American and Canadian denominations. Our Churches
were represented first by Rev. J. Groen and later by Dr. H. Beets.
This Psalter served our Churches in many ways very acceptably for
20 years. In 1934 it was succeeded by the Psalter Hymnal. The best
of the former Psalter was incorporated into this book. Moreover,
many of the choice numbers of the venerable Dutch Psalter were
translated or re-versified by some of our own men with poetic ability
and set to the much appreciated chorales of Reformation times as
found in the Dutch Psalter. Consequently today we are once more
singing some of the beautiful and highly spiritual chorales of Bour-
geois (1551), Pierre (1562), and others. Moreover, this Psalter
Hymnal adopted as the official book of praise for all of our Churches,
contains a large number of hymns, 14/0, the overwhelming majority
of which were not to be sung in our Churches prior to the revision
of Article 69 by the Synod of 1934, and its approval of the Psalter
Hymnal.

2. The article as it now reads.

Before the year 1932, the 69th article read as follows: “In the
Churches only the 150 Psalms of David, the Ten Commandments, the
Lord’s Prayer, the Twelve Articles of Faith, the Songs of Mary,
Zacharias and Simeon, the Morning and Evening Hymns, and the
Hymn of Prayer before the service shall be sung.” Synod of 1932
revised this article and rendered it as it now reads and as it is found
at the head of this present discussion.

The revision of 1932 took place, as will be realized, to make the
adoption of a large number of select hymns possible.

The Reformed Churches have sung a few hymns from the very be-
ginning. Datheen’s Psalter contained versifications of the Ten Com-
mandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Twelve Articles, the Songs of
Zacharias, Mary, and Simeon, and a Prayer to be sung before the

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 283

Sermon. In some sections, such as Overijsel, a number of other hymns
of German origin were permitted for the time being.

Yet it is also a fact that various early Synods refused to introduce
and permit more hymns than had been introduced through the Psalter
of Datheen. Synod of Dort, 1574, decided that the Churches “should
be satisfied” with the Psalter of Datheen until the General Synod
should judge otherwise. Synod of Dort, 1578, decided that hymns
which were not direct reproductions of parts of Holy Writ, should
not be sung in the Churches. Other hymns, though very good but
merely reflecting Christian experience and aspirations, were therefore
ruled out. (Idem, Middelburg, 1581.) The great Synod of Dort, 1618-19,
permitted the very limited number of hymns introduced through
Datheen’s Psalter, but this Synod definitely added the following clause
to Article 69: “All other Hymns shall be barred from the Churches,
and where some have already been introduced, these shall be set
aside by means found to be most appropriate.”

For nearly two centuries the Churches of Holland abided by this
decision of Dort. But in 1807 a committee composed of delegates
from various Provincial Synods introduced 192 hymns, which it recom-
mended to the Churches. Later on the singing of these hymns, some
of which were doctrinally objectionable, was made compulsory* This
factor became a source of much trouble. It helped to call into life
the Secession of 1934, under De Cock, Scholte, e.a.

The chief objections which the Reformed believers have constantly
entertained against hymn singing in the Churches are as follows:

1. God gave us the psalms by inspiration to be used in worship. We
should not add uninspired songs to these inspired, Biblical songs.

2. The psalms are deeply spiritual. Many hymns are shallow and do
not require as much spiritual understanding and experience as the
psalms do. Consequently they are apt to crowd the psalms into disuse
more and more. Hymns tend to become out of date. Consequently
there will be a periodic demand for new hymns. And thus miscon-
ceptions and false doctrines may readily enter the Church through the
practice of hymn singing. Many erroneous conceptions have entered
the hearts and minds of God’s people in the past through repeated
singing of appealing, but faulty hymns.

None should deny that these arguments carry weight. They should
call us to constant vigilance. They might even justifiably move a
Church or a denomination not to permit the singing of hymns in wor-
ship. But we do not believe that the Word of God is violated when
hymn singing is introduced. Essentially the singing of hymns in wor-
ship is not wrong. The New Testament Church may well sing in New
Testament language. Moved by these convictions our Synod of 1932
altered Article 69 so as to permit the introduction of a large number
of hymns. And moved by these same convictions the Reformed
Churches of the Netherlands altered the article likewise, at the Synod
of Middelburg, 1933. These latter Churches introduced a much
smaller number of additional hymns than did our Churches, no doubt
to assure the psalms of their rightful place in worship. For although
it was well for our Synod of 1930 to warn our Churches against the
danger of neglecting the psalms, and for this Synod to state that
our Churches should continue to be psalm singing Churches in the
main, yet by accepting a large number of hymns subsequently (1934),
the danger of neglecting the psalms was much increased.

At the other hand it should not be forgotten that if only a small
number of hymns had been accepted, a call for additional hymns
would soon be heard. We may believe that with a large number of

284

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

hymns selected our Churches will be at rest on this question for a
long time to come. And the ever-present danger of introducing in-
ferior and unsound hymns will not harass us for a good number of
years.

It should be noted that Article 69 requires the singing of psalms.
No Church may set them aside and sing only the hymns. But a
Church need not use the approved hymns. If any Church desires to
sing only the psalms it is at full liberty to do so. The psalms should
predominate in every service unless the subject matter be very spe-
cial, for instance, on Christmas day.

For our Dutch services Synod of 1934 decided that the Churches
were at liberty to use, besides the psalms, the selections of hymns
approved by the Holland Synod of 1933.

It may be added here that some Reformed leaders do not favor the
singing of ordinary hymns in the services of the Church, but they do
not object to the singing of New Testament passages which have been
versified. In other words, they do not object to the singing of hymns
which are renderings of specific parts of the Bible.

In order to help safeguard the singing of the Psalms in public
worship, Synod of 1932 decided to urge all our Consistories to see to
it that the memorization of psalter verses is emphasized in the Cate-
chism and Sunday School classes. (Acts, 1932, p. 136.)

3. Choir singing and instrumental music.

The Synod of 1926 (Art. 57, p. 70) left the matter of choir singing
to the discretion of the Consistories, but at the same time Synod dis-
couraged the practice. Synod feared that choir singing in Church
services would tend to discourage singing by the whole congregation.
In the Roman Church, prior to the Reformation, as we have noted,
choir singing was the chief factor in silencing the congregation.
Today many Churches all around us have excellent choirs and soloists,
but congregational singing in these very Churches is often extremely
weak. Secondly, Synod of 1926 discouraged the introduction of choir
singing because it would be very hard to hold choirs to Article 69 of
the Church Order. Choirs easily sing songs which are inferior or
unsound doctrinally, because the music or sentiment of certain songs
appeal. Neither should it be forgotten that good solo and choir sing-
ing easily becomes an attraction at Church services. Some singers
are tempted to exhibit. And some church-goers go not so much to
worship and to listen to the message of God’s Word, but to hear good
singing. The singing by experts occupies the center of their interest.
Furthermore, Churches in their attempt to secure good choirs are
often tempted to let unworthy persons sing in their choir. Many em-
ploy paid singers. But even if the commercial element is avoided the
primary requisite with many is not true spirituality, but rather a
good voice, ability to sing well. Church choirs have often been a
source of trouble and grief. Petty jealousies and unworthy ambitions
are factors which have made for ill-will again and again. Those of
us that feel much for the introduction of choirs in our services should
talk with some unbiased and experienced Church choir leaders re-
garding these matters. A great preacher like Spurgeon never intro-
duced choir singing. He wanted the people to sing for themselves,
the whole congregation. And he wanted to keep the Word of God at
the center of his services. Good singing is a marvelous art and a
precious gift of God. But in the Church services we believe it is best
for the whole Church to sing. Strangers who may happen to visit
our services often express their appreciation of the fact that we have

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

285

splendid congregational singing, that all, young and old, sing at our
church services. We may be sure that with the introduction of choirs
our congregational singing would suffer and wane. Such at best has
been the general experience of other Churches. And this is but natu-
ral. When the inferior or average singer hears experts sing he
naturally becomes timid. He prefers to let the good singers sing
for him.

All this does not mean that we should not bring our congregational
singing to higher levels. We should improve our singing wherever
possible. The organization of Choral Societies should be encouraged.
Good singing should be promoted. But let us continue to emphasize
and to improve congregational singing. And let our good singers help
to improve our congregational singing.

It may also be said that Synod of 1926 did not object to choirs
which would merely aid and sustain the congregational singing. A
choir which takes the place of the former precentors is unobjection-
able.

Synod of 1930 decided that in Churches that have choirs, only the
psalms and hymns approved according to Article 69, Church Order,
shall be sung, except anthems be sung which contain only the exact
words of portions of Holy Writ. (Acts 1930, p. 10.) And the Synod
of 1928 admonished the Consistories of Churches which have choirs
to exercise close supervision over the membership of the choir. (Acts
1928, Article 67.)

Some of our Churches maintain “song services.” That is to say,
by arrangement of the Consistory, the congregation sings a number
of songs for a brief period, just before the service begins. This is no
doubt a commendatory practice. But why not make this “song service”
a part of the regular service? Even when it precedes the service,
only the approved and adopted psalms and hymns should be sung, as
stands to reason. We definitely favor the incorporation of these song
services into the regular service. Praise is an important part of every
service.

Originally the Reformed leaders, led by Calvin were firmly opposed
to organ accompaniment of congregational singing. As noted, he dis-
continued the choirs which in the Roman Churches sang with the
accompaniment of organs. He preferred to have the congregation
sing without the aid of these organs. He maintained that musical in-
struments in divine worship belonged to the period of shadows, i.e.,
to the Old Testament period.

No doubt Calvin went too far on this score. The evils of Rome
urged him on. Voetius, long after Calvin, also felt that organ playing
in church services did not edify, and it might easily detract attention
from the sermon and become an object of abuse. It should not be for-
gotten in this connection that at first the Church just met in homes
and barns and other places so that they had to sing without the or-
gans. But even when the Reformation was an accomplished fact in
Holland so that the Roman Churches with their beautiful organs be-
came the possessions of the Reformed Churches, even then for a long
time these organs were not used in worship. Week-day concerts were
permitted, but on Sunday the instruments were at first not used for
accompaniment of the singing, but the organ in many instances did
play before and after the sermon.

The Synod of Dort, 1574, decided that all organ playing at the
services should cease. This decision was based especially on I Cor.
14:19, where Paul says that he would rather speak five words with
his understanding than ten thousand words in a tongue.

286

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

No doubt these fathers went to this extreme in reaction to the abuse
as experienced and seen in the Roman Church. In the year 1637 at
Leyden the Church organ was used for the first time for congrega-
tional singing. Other Churches soon followed the example.

Needless to say, our organists should never aim to give anything
like a concert during divine worship. And the organ should not be
predominant during the singing but should merely guide and sustain
the singing of the congregation.

It may be noted that some old Scotch-Presbyterian Churches still
condemn the use of organs, as well as the singing of hymns in public
worship. This is, for instance, the position of the Reformed Presby-
terian (Covenanter) Church of our own land.

There should be understanding and cooperation between the Minis-
ter and the organist. Ideally, the organist should know the text on
which the Minister is to preach and the main thrust of the sermon,
so that he may reckon with this in his playing. The organist should
by all means study the words of the songs to be sung so that he may
play in keeping with the meaning of the words.

ARTICLE LXX.

Since it is proper that the matrimonial state be confirmed in
the presence of Christ's Church, according to the Form for that
purpose , the Consistories shall attend to it,

CHURCH WEDDINGS

1. Past and present usage in the Netherlands.

The Roman Church holds that marriage is a Sacrament. Prior to
the Reformation the Church had full control over marriages. The
government did not concern itself with this important institution.
After the Reformation the solemnization of marriages continued as
a function of the Ministers and the Churches. But it was soon felt
that the government should have something to say regarding this all
important matter. The first Synod (Emden, 1571) already declared
that marriage is in part an ecclesiastical interest and in part a civil
interest. The Churches urged the adoption of uniform, Scriptural
marriage laws. But the government seemed loath to do its part. For
a long time the state held itself aloof and left the matter of mar-
riages almost entirely to the Churches. Even those who held no
connection with any Church sought marriage by Ministers. For this
reason the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, decided that marriages of those
who stood outside of the Church should not be solemnized publicly
and with the solemn blessing in the Church.* The Ministers were
permitted to unite such parties in marriage privately. Jews and
others were married by government appointees from the close of the
16th century on.

Not until after the French Revolution of 1789 did the governments
solemnize all marriages, taking this right away from the Churches.
And not until 1848 did the Dutch government annex this right to
itself. jFrom then on the Church could and did “confirm” the mar-

• Post-Acta, 162nd Session, III.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 287

riages of its members, but the actual solemnization, valid before the
law, was performed by government officials.

In one of the oldest editions of our Church Order, 1586, we there-
fore find that the Churches are urged to abide by usages regarding
marriage ceremonies then prevalent, until the government should have
taken action. The Synod of Dort, 1618-19, virtually adopted the same
reading, and stressed that uniformity was highly desirable and that
the government should be asked as soon as possible to take action.
In 1905 the Churches of Holland rewrote this antiquated 70th article
of the Church Order, as it is also found in our Church Order since
1914.

At present the marriage proper takes place before a civil magis-
trate. The Church no longer has the right to solemnize marriages.
Consequently Christian marriages are confirmed in the Church, upon
authorization of the Consistory concerned, immediately after the
marriage as a civil institution has been consummated at the court-
house. For this reason the Holland Form speaks of confirmation of
marriages and not of their solemnization. We copied the Dutch word-
ing in 1914, but this is a mistake, since our weddings are the actual
solemnization of marriages. Our new Form has reckoned with these
facts and it is very correctly called: Form for the Solemnization of
Marriage. With us solemnization for the state and confirmation by
the Church coincide. In private weddings the Minister only solemnizes
the marriage for the state. In Church weddings he solemnizes the
marriage for the state, and confirms the same for the Church.

2. Why is it “proper that the matrimonial state he confirmed in the
presence of Christ’s Church”?

Because the Church has a very vital interest in marriage. Confir-
mation of the matrimonial state by the Church implies, first of all,
that the Church and the domain of the covenant of grace which it
occupies officially sanction the marriage in question; and secondly,
that the Church in its special prayers specifically pleads for God’s
blessing upon the marriage. The interest of the Church in the mar-
riages its members contract is just as real and vital as the interest
of the relatives and of the state in these marriages. The Church
should therefore be recognized. The marriages of its members means
much to the Church because God builds His Church covenantally
through the seed of the Church. From children to be bom God con-
tinues and expands His Church, and without thorough Christian homes
the Church is bound to wane and fail.

In many of our American Churches all around us couples will be
married in the church building, although the marriages are private
in character. For reasons of sentiment and style perhaps some of our
own people who do not care for a Church wedding in the real sense
of that term, nevertheless desire to be “married in church.” Such
private marriages performed in the church building are of course
not Church weddings. Our Ministers and Consistories should discour-
age the use of our church auditoriums for private weddings. Regular
Church weddings should become common. Private marriages per-
formed in the church building will only retard the general introduction
of Church weddings.

3. Proper procedure regarding Church weddings.

The privilege of having their marriage solemnized before the con-
gregation of God should be requested by the parties concerned at a
regular Consistory meeting, or the request should be presented to a

288

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

committee of the Consistory appointed for this purpose. As the Form
stipulates the contemplated Church marriage is announced to the
Church and thus takes place with the approval of the congregation.
If anyone knows of reasons why the marriage should not take place
— such as unbelief and godlessness in one or both parties concerned,
or immoral conduct in one of the parties which would render the con-
templated marriage illegal before the state, or contrary to Scriptures
— . he is duty bound to notify the Consistory without delay.

As to the day of the week for Church weddings, it is perfectly
proper that marriages be solemnized in one of the regular Sunday
services. This is to be preferred to week-day Church weddings. When
the marriage takes place on Sunday the Minister can preach an ap-
propriate sermon. And sermons on the significance of Christian mar-
riage, and our duty before God in the marriage state are certainly
very necessary in this day and age of divorces, elopements, camal-
mindedness, etc. True, when marriage takes place during a week-day
the Minister will also preach a short sermon, but in a brief sermonette
he can say very little. And what he says will perhaps be less effective
because of the wedding reception and distracting activities of various
kinds. Besides, as a rule, only a small part of the congregation can
be expected at week-day Church marriages, especially if these be-
come the rule rather than the exception. We also feel that marriages
solemnized at Sunday services are as a rule more solemn than those
which take place at a special week-day service. But week-day Church
weddings are not to be condemned.

Week-day services held for the purpose of uniting a couple in
marriage are to be considered and ordered as services of the Word
in the ordinary sense. They are services held under supervision of
the Consistory as all regular services. The salutation and benediction
are pronounced as usual. The Word is also preached, though briefly.

Marriages before Christ’s Church should be well arranged, but also
sober in the good sense of that word. Frats and frills should be
avoided. Overly much “style” tends to detract. Our Church weddings
should never become “big attractions.” The beauty of Christian sim-
plicity should be cultivated also here, rather than attractions and
appendages borrowed from the world. The Word of God should oc-
cupy the all important place in these special services.

4. Who are entitled to ecclesiastical solemnization of marriage?

All members of our Churches whose contemplated marriages are
not anti-Biblical and whose confession and conduct does not mark
them as unbelievers. This includes not only members-in-full, but also
those who have not yet made profession of their faith, though they
were baptized in infancy. Even one who is not baptized, but who
manifests interest in God and things spiritual, and promises to use
the means of grace available to him, might be united in marriage
before the Church. However, it should be definitely understood that
he (or she) will fully cooperate in permitting the Baptism and Chris-
tian instruction of the children which may be bora out of the marriage
contemplated. If one of the parties be an unbeliever, by profession
or conduct or both, their marriage may not be solemnized before the
Church. Neither will any Christian Minister desire to unite a believer
to an unbeliever in private, as is to be understood.

One belonging to another evangelical Church may be united in
marriage to a member of one of our Churches if the “outsider” agrees
that the children shall be baptized in one of our Churches and reared
in the Reformed faith, just as in the case of an individual as yet be-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

289

longing’ to no Church at all. Needless to say, there is no ruling in
the Church Order regarding this and kindred questions. We merely
give our personal convictions regarding these questions.

Of course, our parents and Ministers should constantly warn our
children and young people against the danger of mixed marriages.
Marriages with those who belong to one of our own Churches should
remain to be the ideal.

5. What should be noted regarding our new Form?

The Form for the Solemnization of Marriage was adopted by our
Synod of 1934. It superceded a Form which had been used since Re-
formation times. The new Form is somewhat shorter and optimistic
in tone, whereas the old Form struck a grave and heavy tone, re-
minding the couple to be married forthwith that married folks must
look for many hardships.

The introductory statement, not part of the Form proper, reads:
“ Where the wedding takes place before the congregation (cf. Art. 70
of the Church Order);, the following announcement is to be made on
the previous Sunday: . . This wording is bound to give the reader
the impression that the Form can be used equally well for marriages
performed privately. This, however, is not entirely correct. The Form
is definitely written for regular Church weddings and can only be
used consistently with alterations. For instance, the words: “Beloved
in the Lord, we are assembled here in the presence of God . . .” clear-
ly refer to a gathering of the congregation. And the statement,
“Since we have received no lawful objections to their proposed union,
. . .” are really out of place when the marriage is performed privately,
inasmuch as neither the Church, nor anyone else has been given op-
portunity to object.

Furthermore the declaration, “According to the laws of the State
and the ordinances of the Church of Christ, I now pronounce you,
. . . , husband and wife, . . can hardly be used for private weddings
since the Minister in the case of private marriages acts as an agent
of the State, but not upon authority of the Church. The only ordi-
nances which the Church has made regarding weddings are contained
in Article 70 of the Church Order, and this article provides for wed-
dings before the Church and in no way regulates or authorizes private
weddings.

The giving away of the bride to the bridegroom, which the new
Form allows, has been borrowed from other old Forms as the very
choice of words in “Who gives this woman to this man?” also indi-
cates. Perhaps it would have been better if this optional element had
been omitted and left to the betrothal or engagement.

The Roman Church considers holy matrimony to be a Sacrament.
We do not. In view of our Reformed conception it is doubtful whether
it is wise for the Ministers to declare the bridegroom and bride hus-
band and wife, “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit.” It is doubtlessly borrowed from the baptismal formula.

6. The engagement.

In the land of our forefathers marriages among Reformed people
are consummated in three stages. First comes the engagement. Then
follows the solemnization by the civil authorities. And finally the
confirmation by the Church takes place. No Reformed man or woman
would think of omitting the last step. That would be a disgrace, and
would stigmatize the couple instantly.

A word regarding the first step mentioned, the engagement, will

290

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

not be out of place. For generations back this first step has always
been held in honor among Reformed people. Today among us, in very
many instances, the engagement is merely a personal agreement be-
tween the young man and young woman, often made in secret and
kept in secret. The parents are hardly consulted. This is not as it
should be. Marriage is a very important institution, and many young
people are apt to act rashly and inconsiderately, not realizing their
own best interests and the great significance, for good or evil, in-
volved in marriage. Moreover, marriage is not merely the concern
of the couple promising marriage. It is to a certain limited extent
also the affair of the families involved. Marriage brings families to-
gether and consequently the relatives of both sides have an interest.
Parents moreover have responsibilities toward their children and their
spiritual welfare, also for their future regarding things temporal.
Because of these parental responsibilities before God and parental
rights towards their children no engagements should take place with-
out the knowledge and approval of the parents or guardians involved.
And this is likewise to the best interest of our young people, generally
speaking. The old custom which prescribed that the young man asked
for the hand of the girl of his choice from the father is wholly com-
mendatory. And engagements should take place with the consent of
the parents of both the young man and the young woman. It would
be well if more were made in our circles of engagements or betrothals,
especially since there is so much looseness and godlessness in regard
to marriage.

All hasty marriages, perhaps secretly consummated and announced
as a surprise to relatives and friends should be frowned upon and
condemned. And no marriages should be consummated by any of our
Ministers, either privately or before the Church, unless it is an estab-
lished fact that parental approval, preferably at the time of the en-
gagement, was obtained. Just because the State does not require
parental consent of young people who are of age is no reason why the
Church should not require this consent.

As stands to reason, elopements are to be condemned. Neither
should marriages be kept secret for weeks and months. All this is of
the world and does not fit in with biblical, Reformed conceptions.

It is said that before a Roman priest unites a couple in marriage
he confers with them regarding obligations and duties related to mar-
riage. He is said to warn them against worldly standards and morals.
Who of us, knowing the ways of the world of today somewhat, would
care to say that counsel by a trusted spiritual leader to those about
to enter the marriage state, is wholly unnecessary?

7. The duties of Consistories.

The present article states that “the Consistories shall attend to it.”
Consistories should therefore encourage weddings before the Church
of Christ. The matter should be mentioned to young people’s classes,
in sermons, at the time of family visitations, etc. Church Visitors
would do well to inquire whether the Consistories are faithful in this
respect. Very often much is made of funerals. A “service” in the
Church is insisted upon. But the confirmation of marriages before
the Church of Christ is considered as unnecessary. This is not as it
should be. Let Consistories enlighten their people regarding these
matters.

CONCERNING CENSURE AND ADMONITION

ARTICLE LXXI.

As Christian Discipline is of a spiritual nature , and exempts
no one from Civil trial or punishment by the Authorities, so
also besides Civil punishment there is need of Ecclesiastical
Censures, to reconcile the sinner with the Church and his neigh-
bor and to remove the offense out of the Church of Christ.

ECCLESIASTICAL CENSURE

The fourth main division of our Church Order concerns itself with
censure and ecclesiastical admonition. Articles 71 to 81 cover this
subject as follows:

Article 71, the character, necessity, objects, and purpose of ecclesi-
astical discipline.

Articles 72 and 73, mutual discipline according to Christ’s rule in
Matt. 18.

Articles 74-78, consistorial discipline regarding members in general.

Articles 79 and 80, consistorial discipline regarding office-bearers as
such.

Article 81, mutual censure by office-bearers.

Article 82-86, regulate various matters not directly belonging to
the department of discipline.

1. Thel character of ecclesiastical discipline.

Article 71 very definitely stresses the fact that ecclesiastical dis-
cipline is spiritual in nature, and that it “exempts no one from Civil
trial or punishment by the Authorities.” The article clearly distin-
guishes between ecclesiastical authority and civil authority, between
the domain of the Church and the domain of the State. The Church
and the State each occupy their own sphere. When a church member
commits a crime punishable by law, he is in no wise exempted from
punishment by confessing his crime to the Church. For instance, if
some church member should commit murder he would naturally be dis-
ciplined. In case he should manifest sincere repentance the Church
would lift the censure and the sinner in question would be restored
eventually to all privileges of full membership. But the reconciliation
of this criminal with the Church would in no wise exempt him from
trial and punishment by law. The State would be compelled to sentence
and punish such a criminal even to the extent of capital punishment,
if necessary. As a murderer he may have to die in the electric chair
though the Church has readmitted him to the Lord’s Supper as one
whose sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake.

The opening words of Article 71 therefore specify a principle which
the Reformed Churches were eager to maintain. They did not believe
that the Church should dominate the State (Rome), nor that the State
should rule the Church (Erastian, original Lutheran conception).
Calvin very vigorously contended for the independence of the Church
versus the State in Geneva and also for years contended to keep the

291

292

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

articles of Church Discipline in the Church Order of Geneva, while
the Civil Authorities desired the cancellation of these articles. Not
until 1555 was the Church’s biblical right and duty on this score fully
established at Geneva. Calvin, it may be said, stressed the need of
Church discipline. The same is true for the Reformed Churches of
France and Scotland.* And of the Churches of the Netherlands also
stressed the necessity of Church discipline. The Convention at Wezel,
the first general ecclesiastical gathering of the Reformation Churches
in Holland, 1568, adopted 21 articles relative to Church Discipline.

But the Reformed Churches never meant to rob the State of its right
and duty to punish those guilty of civil transgressions. The Reformed
Churches held and still hold that both Church and State have their
own spheres of authority from God and their responsibility before
Him. Christian discipline is of a spiritual nature and exempts no one
from civil trial or punishment. No doubt our fathers also enunciated
this principle so clearly to avoid all misunderstanding and to gain the
civil approval of the Church Order, which approval was much coveted
in those days.

Ecclesiastical “punishment” then bears a spiritual character. It is
Christian discipline. Christ gave His Church a spiritual authority
which is administered by the officers which He gives to the Church.
(Eph. 4:11-16; I Cor. 12:28; Heb. 5:4.) In the exercise of this spir-
itual “punishment,” spiritual means and weapons are used, i.e., ad-
monition, warning, censure, conviction, and excommunication. “For
the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before
God to the casting down of strongholds.” (II Cor. 10:4.)

It should also be noted in this connection that our Church Order
merely indicates certain principles to be followed in the exercise of
ecclesiastical discipline. The Church Order does not specify in detail
how investigations are to be conducted; how long one should be dis-
ciplined before the final step of excommunication is taken; which
specific sins are worthy of discipline, etc., etc. The civil authorities
have a penal code by which they are guided. The Church has no
penal code, for the Church does not seek to administer external pun-
ishment, but the Church seeks to save the sinner and to promote the
glory of God. To attain these ends each case must be dealt with ac-
cording to its own peculiar circumstances, and as soon as the end in
view has been gained ecclesiastical discipline ceases. On this point
Dr. F. L. Rutgers aptly remarked: “No penal code can be constructed
for ecclesiastical discipline. The purpose of discipline demands a
maximum of variability in its application, not a set of rules for con-
stant application. Just so the principles are established, and just so
these are applied in every particular case, for only then will ecclesi-
astical discipline function correctly.”**

Discipline according to the Reformed conception is not the same as
punishment. The State punishes to right a wrong committed and to
vindicate justice. This principle is primary in the application of civil
punishment. In the ecclesiastical sphere, however, the principle of
correction is primary. For this reason ecclesiastical discipline is
chastisement, rather than punishment, just as in Dutch we distinguish
between “tucht” and “straf.” In keeping with all this the opening
words of Article 71, “Christian Discipline is of a spiritual nature
. . .” should receive full emphasis.

• College- V oordrachten. Dr. F. L.. Rutgers over Gereformeerd Kerk-
recht, bewerkt door. Dr. J. De Jong, 1918, p. 10.

•• Idem. p. 11.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

293

2. The necessity of ecclesiastical discipline.

Dr. F. L. Rutgers is reported to have given four grounds upon
which the Reformed have based the Church's right and duty to exer-
cise discipline, namely:

A. Scripture passages which directly or indirectly enjoin disci-
pline: *

1. Matt. 18:16-18. These words clearly indicate that the Church
has a right and duty to censure, even to excommunication, although
they also teach us that personal wrongs, known to the transgressor
and the party wronged only, or to a very limited number, should be
settled privately if at all possible.

2. Matt. 16:16-19. In these passages Christ gives to Peter the
power to bind and loose. Doubtless Christ here speaks to Peter as
representative of all the Apostles, for in John 20:23 the self-same
power is attributed to all the Apostles. But the Apostles are but the
representatives of the New Testament Church, and so we may con-
clude that in Matt. 16:16-19 and John 20:23 Christ charges the Church
to exercise discipline. The wording of Matt. 18:17, “And if he refuse
to hear them, tell it to the Church: and, if he refuse to hear the
Church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican”,
also pleads for this contention.

3. I Cor. 5. In this passage Paul prescribes excommunication re-
garding the grievous sinner in the Corinthian Church, and in II Cor.
2:7 he directs his readmission.

4. In numerous passages God’s Word tells us not to fellowship with
heretics and such as had forsaken the Lord. (Cf. Rev. 2:14-16; Titus
3:10-11; II John 10.)

5. Passages which condemn intermingling of believers and unbe-
lievers, the holy and the unholy. (Cf. II Cor. 6:14.)

B. Old Testament injunctions regarding the removal of sinners out
of the congregation of God. (Cf. Ex. 22:20; Lev. 24:11-16.)

C. The fact that from Apostolic days on the early Church exer-
cised discipline, as Cyprian, Tertullian, and other Church Fathers
tell us.

D. The general testimony of various ancient Church Councils
agrees that the Church cannot continue to exist in its purity unless
it exercises discipline.

As will be understood the necessity for ecclesiastical discipline is
found particularly in the New Testament injunctions which demand
its exercise. In other words, discipline must be maintained in the
Church because God commanded it. Besides the passages indicated
the following may be cited: Rom. 16:17; I Thess. 5:14; II Thess.
3:6,14; I Tim. 5:1,2.

3. The objects of ecclesiastical discipline.

The Roman Church applied censure also to buildings, lands, books,
etc. The Reformation Churches would have none of this, inasmuch as
they found no Scriptural warrant for the practice. Church discipline
should be limited to persons and cannot be applied to lifeless objects.
Neither can it apply to persons already dead, (heretics, false teachers,
etc.) as Rome sought to do.

According to Article 71 the object of church discipline is the sinner,
for we read : “. . . to reconcile the sinner with the Church . . .” Church
discipline, therefore, applies to men or women, members of the Church,
who have committed censurable sin. It does not apply to those who

• Cf. Collegre-Voordrachtett, etc., 1918. pp. 14-15.

294

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

are outside of the Church (versus Rome), nor to those of the Church
who persist in resigning their membership in spite of numerous and
urgent and long continued admonitions. Membership in the organized,
instituted Church is in the last analysis a matter of personal choice
and responsibility before God, and no Church has the right to compel
one to be a member of a certain Church against his own conscience
or will. Let it be well understood: We regard the resigning of one’s
membership as a very serious step. As a rule it is a very serious sin,
for very often it is resorted to in order to escape the full force of
discipline. In such cases the Consistory should not yield lightly and
should refuse to acquiesce or accept a resignation unless the party
concerned insists on resigning. The promises made and the obliga-
tions assumed at the time of confession of faith give a Consistory
the right to apply censure even to excommunication, and unless the
sinner in question persists in severing his relationship with the
Church, the Consistory ought to perform its full duty. No easy-going,
weak sentimentality should cause a Consistory to be remiss in its
duty on this score. The sinner concerned and the Church involved are
both entitled to full exercise of discipline. This is in complete har-
mony with what the Synod of 1918 decided. (Art. 53, p. 66.)

It stands to reason that the Churches should be much more con-
siderate of those members who wish to leave one of our Churches
because they no longer agree with our confessional standards and
doctrinal position. If such members insist on leaving, because they
feel compelled in conscience before God, after the Consistory has en-
deavored to show them their error, then the Consistory may acquiesce
in their action leaving, however, the full responsibility for their de-
parture with them, which fact should also be clearly stated to the
congregation.

Those who remove from the Church and fail to affiliate with one
of our other Churches by means of an attestation of membership, by
their very removal and neglect place themselves outside of the Church
and its government. This is a very serious sin, but such people are
no longer subject to Church discipline in the full sense, although the
nearest Church, if possible, should admonish them persistently. If
distance does not prohibit, the Church which they have left should
work with them diligently also.

Sometimes members of the Church withdraw themselves from the
meetings of public worship and seek edification elsewhere. They do
not seek to resign but simply neglect their duty toward their own
Church. The Christian conduct of these members may be unobjection-
able except for this one irregularity. The Synod of ’s Gravenhage,
Reformed Churches of Holland, decided in 1914 that Consistories should
continue to admonish such irregular members and if need be they
should refuse to give them the Sacraments, but that they should not
excommunicate them.

It need hardly be mentioned that discipline should always be indi-
vidual. The Roman Church would interdict whole communities. That
is, by order of the Pope the clergy were forbidden to perform religious
services or to administer the Sacraments. Whole regions were placed
under the papal ban. Thus the innocent and the guilty suffered alike.
Our Church discipline is always individual. No two members, though
they should be husband and wife and though their sins are identical,
are ever disciplined as a group, but always individually.

Only those can be objects of ecclesiastical discipline who are fully
responsible. Those who are insane or mentally irresponsible are ad-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

295

monished inasfar as they are susceptible to admonition, but regular
Church discipline is not applied to them.

All men, rich and poor alike, are subject to discipline. The Roman
Church exempted the Pope, and the Episcopalian and Lutheran
Churches exempted civil rulers, but the Reformed Churches placed
one and all under the jurisdiction and grace of Christ, no matter what
his station in life might be.

Children may also become objects of discipline. But since they are
incomplete members, discipline in their case will also be incomplete.
They are members who have not yet come to full responsibility and
understanding. Consequently they are censured, if need be, through
admonitions given, but they are not excommunicated and placed out-
side of the Church. As a rule Consistories will have to talk to the
parents of unruly or worldly children first of all, inasmuch as the
parents may be to blame more than the children. But children must
also be admonished directly. See Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20.

Baptized members who have reached years of discretion and who
willfully neglect to make profession of their faith also become ob-
jects of discipline. They must be instructed and admonished prayer-
fully. If they continue to be indifferent and unbelieving the Church
finally declares that their relationship to the Church has been severed.
Their names are stricken from the rolls of the Church. The procedure
to be followed in such cases has been indicated by Synod of 1918.
(Cf. Art. 52.)

Consistories should not hesitate to do their full duty regarding men
or women who have come to years of understanding and manifest no
sense of sin and of faith in Jesus Christ. If their words and conduct
are anti-Christian action should be all the more drastic. But even
those who have a historical faith and still come to divine worship, if
there is no real interest and prayerful seeking on their part, although
their general conduct may not be altogether godless and wicked, their
names should not be carried on the membership books indefinitely.
The Church of Christ, strictly speaking, is composed of living mem-
bers only, though some of these, inasmuch as they are children, are
incomplete. The organized or instituted Church should reflect in its
membership as much as possible the membership of the Church of
Christ, the spiritual body of our Lord. The Churches should therefore
only carry complete and incomplete (minor) members. Ideally there
is no room for a third class, so called “members-by-baptism.” These
unfaithful children of the Church, having reached years of under-
standing, should be labored with persistently, and if they refuse to
repent and believe, their names should be removed from the member-
ship book. They should never be accorded a semi-official standing in
the Church so that they feel that their position is after all quite
normal and unobjectionable.

It is the stand of our Churches, by Synodical conclusion, that if it
becomes manifest that a member belongs to a secret, oathbound or-
ganization, he shall be disciplined. (Cf. General Rules, Art. 55, 1881.)
In harmony with this decision it is the duty of Consistories “to put
the question to those who desire to be received as members and ad-
mitted to the Lord’s Supper whether they belong to any society bound
by oath or solemn vow.” (Cf. Acts 1867, Art. 15.) The implication
is, of course, that those who do belong to a lodge are not to be ad-
mitted to the Lord’s Table. Their profession of faith is unacceptable.

Why do the Christian Reformed Churches hold to this position re-
garding lodge-membership? Strictly speaking, because these organi-
zations are essentially anti-Christian in character. The teachings of

296

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

the lodge imply that if one lives up to the ideals and standards of
the lodge, all is well. He who dies as a good lodge member is con-
sidered to be saved, even though he did not believe in Christ as Son
of God and only Saviour. Thus the lodge is essentially anti-Christian.
It is indeed religious, but its religion is not Biblical Christianity. It
is far rather a modernistic, paganistic corruption of Christianity. By
joining the lodge one expresses agreement with its doctrines. Which
means that when one joins the lodge he denies Christ as Saviour and
he denies Biblical Christianity. All this takes place upon fearful
oaths. We object to the uncalled for secrecy of the lodge and to the
fact that members are asked to swear to matters which are only re-
vealed to them after they have sworn to them ; we object to the world-
ly atmosphere which the lodge fosters, etc. But our essential objec-
tion to the lodge is its false, anti-Christian teachings. If the lodge is
right, Christianity is false. No man can consistently be a member of
the lodge and also of the Church of Christ.

It is interesting to note that the Synod of the Reformed Churches
of Holland, Utrecht, 1923, Art. 143, came to the following conclusions
regarding the Independent Order of Odd-Fellows:

a. That Consistories must continue to admonish members in full,
and members by Baptism, to sever their connections with this Order.

b. That Consistories must discipline those who continue in this evil.

It should be clear that the issue is not at all whether the Churches

can censure societies or groups of members. To do so would be un-
Reformed. To this all agree. But this is the issue: Does lodge-mem-
bership involve, expressed or unexpressed, a denial of fundamental
Christian doctrines or not ? Our Churches have answered this question
in the affirmative. We are fully persuaded on this point, and conse-
quently anyone who joins a lodge and refuses to break with it is cen-
sured for his anti-Christian profession and conduct.* It may safely
be said that he who joins the lodge sins against the First Command-
ment, for the God of Unitarianism, Modernism, and Lodgism is not
the God of the Bible and of the Ten Commandments.

Regarding Church membership and membership in our so-called
neutral labor unions various Synods have made pronouncements. Par-
ticularly the Synods of 1904 and 1916 dealt with this matter. The
latter Synod was somewhat more tolerant in its conclusions than the
Synod of 1904 had been. However, the conclusions of 1916 did not
settle the issue. To the mind of many these conclusions were taken
prematurely and without sufficient warrant. The matter continued to
be a subject of debate and study. Synod of 1928 accepted a number

* The instruction books written by high officers in various lodges, and
for the instruction of lodge members, reveal that the lodge is anti-Chris-
tian in character. To this judgment many believers, who have themselves
been lodge members, agree. For example, W. P. Loveless, an ex-chaplain
of the Masonic Lodge of Wheaton, 111., testifies: “The whole structure
of lodge procedure is built upon the erroneous teachings of the ‘universal
fatherhood of God’ and ‘the universal brotherhood of man.' (Jno. 8:44);
and the necessity for salvation alone by grace through faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8,9) is entirely ignored.” And again: “They (Chris-
tianity and lodgism) are two opposite beliefs. I cannot believe that I am
saved only by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and still be-
lieve in the religion of the lodge which teaches that we are saved by
character and good works.” (Cf. Loveless, The Christian and Secret Socie-
ties, National Chr. Assn., p. 10.) E. A. Coyle, a Unitarian Minister and
at one time also Worshipful Master of the Masonic lodge. Marietta Ohio
says: “Nearly all of those monitors (books of instructions of fraternal
orders) have, as their very heart, the ‘fatherhood of God’, the ‘brother-
hood of man,' immortality, and salvation by character.” (Quoted by Love-
less, p. 13.)

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

297

of clear-cut resolutions regarding this question. (Cf. Acts of Synod,
1928, pp. 91-96 or J. L. Schaver, Christian Reformed Church Order,
pp. 116, 117.)

Synod of 1928 also appointed a committee charged to serve Synod
1930 with advice regarding the question what might be done to revive
Christian organizations in the social sphere. (The Christian Labor
Union, headquarters in Grand Rapids, had disappeared from the scene
due in part to the compromising position which the Synod of 1916 had
taken regarding labor unions. )

In response to a report of this committee of which Prof. L. Berkhof
served as president and Prof. C. Bouma as secretary. Synod of 1930
adopted a number of important conclusions which may be found on
pages 74-76 of the Acts of Synod, 1930.

More than one Synod, the one of 1936 lastly, has recommended the
Christian Labor Alliance, headquarters in Grand Rapids, Mich., to our
leaders and our people for their moral support and cooperation. (Cf.
Acts 1936, Art. 50.)

Regarding decisions pertaining to anti-Christian labor unions, it
should be remembered that our Churches do not discipline societies or
groups of persons, but only individuals who make themselves guilty
in doctrine or life regarding censurable sins; who believe and do
things which are clearly transgressions of God's Commandments. Our
ecclesiastical decisions concerning anti-Christian lodges, unions, etc.,
are as such not disciplinary decisions against these organizations, but
ecclesiastical conclusions mutually arrived at by all the Churches
concerned, according to which Consistories are to admonish and dis-
cipline Church members if need be.

Synod of 1928 adopted a number of resolutions regarding worldli-
ness, which also concern the matter of discipline. These resolutions
read as follows:

L Synod reminds our people of the doctrinal and ethical principles
which should guide the Christian in his relation to the world in gen-
eral and in the matter of amusements in particular, and urges all our
professors, ministers, elders, and Bible teachers to emphasize these
principles in this age of prevailing worldliness.

Some of the most important of these principles follow:

1. The honor of God requires:

a. That the Christian’s amusements should at the very least not
conflict with the honor of God.

b. That we and our children should be keenly aware, also in our
amusements, of our covenant relation to God as His peculiar
people.

c. That the Christian shall deem it a matter of loyalty to God not
to further the interests of an institution which is manifestly
an instrument of Satan for attack on the Kingdom of God.

2. From the consideration of the welfare of man we conclude:

a. That there is a legitimate place in life for such amusements as
are recreative for body and mind;

b. That no physical recreation or mental diversion should be toler-
ated which is in any way or in any degree subversive of our
spiritual and moral well-being;

c. That, even when our amusements are not spiritually or morally
harmful, they should not be allowed to occupy more than a
secondary, subordinate, place in life.

3. The principle of spiritual separation from the world:

a. Does not imply that Christians should form separate communi-
ties or should shun all association with ungodly men (I Cor.
5:99 ft.);

b. Forbids friendship, in distinction from fellowship, with evil men
(James 4:4);

c. Requires that we shun all evil in the world;

d. Demands a weaning away of the heart from the transient things
of this present earthly sphere (Colossians 3:1,2).

298

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

4. Christian Liberty:

a. Consists in freedom from the power of sin; in freedom from the
law: its curse, its demands as a condition for earning eternal
life, its oppressive yoke; and in liberty of conscience with refer-
ence to human ordinances and things neither prescribed nor con-
demned, either directly or indirectly, in the Word of God;

b. Is limited in its exercise by the law of love (I Cor. 8:9, 13), the
law of self-preservation (Matt. 18:8, 9), and the law of self-
denial, which often requires the renunciation of things in them-
selves lawful (Matt. 16:24).

II. While several practices are found in our circles which cannot
pass the muster of these principles, and while all our amusements,
not only theatre-attendance, dancing, and card-playing, should be
judged in the light of these principles, yet Synod feels constrained,
in pursuance of the decisions of the Synod of 1926 in the matter of
amusements, to call particular attention to this familiar trio. It great-
ly deplores the increasing prevalence among us of these forms of
amusement, urgently warns our members against them, and further
refers our people to the material on the subject given in the report
of the Committee on Worldly Amusements, (Agendum, Part I, pp.
31-47).

III. Synod urges all our leaders and all our people to pray and
labor for the awakening and deepening of spiritual life in general,
and to be keenly aware of the absolute indispensability of keeping
our religious life vital and powerful, through daily prayer, the earnest
searching of the Scriptures, and through engaging in practical Chris-
tian works, which are the best antidote against worldliness.

IV. Synod exhorts all our leaders to warn unceasingly against the
prevailing spirit and forms of worldliness in order that our Reformed
principles in these matters may be re-emphasized; insists that these
warnings shall be given not only in the preaching, but also in our
Catechism and Sunday School classes, in family-visitation, and in
personal contact whenever occasion presents itself; and urges that
these warnings shall be given also in our school-rooms.

V. Synod reminds Consistories that in nominations for or appoint-
ments to positions of responsibility in our churches, careful attention
should be paid to conduct in the matter of amusements; and suggests
that also other bodies, such as Boards of Christian Schools, City Mis-
sions, etc., heed this same matter in their appointments.

VI. Synod urge Consistories to deal in the spirit of love, yet also
in view of the strong tide of worldliness which is threatening our
churches, very firmly with all cases of misdemeanor and offensive
conduct in the matter of amusements; and, where repeated admoni-
tions by the Consistory are left unheeded, to apply discipline as a
last resort.

VII. Synod instructs Consistories to inquire of those who ask to
be examined previous to making public profession of their faith and
partaking of the Lord’s Supper as to their stand and conduct in the
matter of worldly amusements, and, if it appears that they are not
minded to lead the life of Christian separation and consecration, not
to permit their public profession. (Cf. Acts of Synod, 1928, pp. 86-89.)

We have somewhat considered the nature of these resolutions in
our explanation of Art. 61, and shall not repeat here. We merely
stress the fact that these resolutions of 1928 should not be interpreted
legalistically. The Synod clearly placed the emphasis where it be-
longs, namely on spiritual, consecrated Christian living. Certain forms
of worldly amusements are mentioned, it is true, but only by way of
example and because these were being adopted by many of our people,
whereas Synod was persuaded that these and like amusements were
either wrong in themselves or laden with grave dangers to spiritual
life.

It certainly would be unwise and unbiblical for our Churches and
Consistories to single out certain sins of worldliness and apply disci-
pline regarding these, while passing by other evils, greater perhaps
in some instances than those singled out. No Consistory should raise
the familiar trio of theatre-attendance, dancing, and card-playing to

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

299

shibboleths for membership in good and regular standing in its
Church, while passing by many other forms of sin, such as dishonesty;
road-house or night-club attendance; Sabbath desecration; the read-
ing of harmful, impure, lustful literature; drunkenness; profanity;
the practice of unbiblical birth-control; etc., etc.

It should also be noted that Synod of 1928 declared that discipline
should be applied as a last resort, not merely for those who are per-
sistently guilty of worldly living in certain specific forms but with
worldliness in whatsoever form it may manifest itself. This harmon-
izes with the fact that the resolutions do not require Consistories
simply to ask of those that desire to make profession of faith whether
they indulge in theatre-attendance, dancing and card-playing. No,
Consistories are to ask applicants regarding “their stand and conduct
in the matter of worldly amusements, and if it appears that they are
not minded to lead the life of Christian separation and consecration,
not to permit their public professions.” This, as we note, covers the
whole field of worldly amusements.

Consistories will do wise to inquire regarding whichever definite
forms of worldly amusements may be popular and enticing for the
day and circumstances and locality in which a Church finds itself.
But whether the familiar trio should be mentioned, or whether other
evils deserve special inquiry, or whether an inquiry in general terms
is sufficient, will depend on many ever-changing circumstances, and
on the parties making profession of faith. Let us be thorough and
unafraid, but let us also avoid legalistic extemalism. And as to dis-
cipline, let us not hesitate to do our full duty, but neither let us set
up legalistic, partial standards.

Let the rule of Art. 72, Church Order, which indicates that one
must be disciplined if he “errs in doctrine or offends in conduct . . .”
continue to guide us. This rule covers every transgression of God's
law and all unchristian conduct.

Synod of 1888 ruled that in case parents refuse to send their
children to the catechism classes they shall be admonished, and if
need be, disciplined to excommunication. There are good reasons for
this ruling. Anyone who fails to instruct his children in God’s Word
or refuses to have them instructed through the appointed channels of
the Church thereby repudiates his profession of Christianity and is
guilty of ungodly conduct. Such should be admonished and disciplined.

4. The purpose of ecclesiastical discipline.

The purpose of discipline according to Article 71 is two-fold:

“To reconcile the sinner with the Church and his neighbors and to
remove the offense out of the Church of Christ.” By “offense” the
article means not merely what may hurt the feelings of others, but
that which may cause others to sin, that over which others may stum-
ble and fall, as the word used by Christ definitely signifies in the
Greek language.

This purpose for Church discipline as indicated in Article 71 accords
fully with the Bible. (Cf. I Cor. 5; II Cor. 2:7; II Thess. 3:14.)

Calvin mentions a three-fold purpose for Church discipline: 1) That
the name of God may not be blasphemed by the world. 2) To safe-
guard the loyal members of the Church against the bad influence of
the unfaithful. 3) To move the sinner to shame and repentance.

a Lasco, Voetius, and Rutgers all agree essentially with the pur-
pose of discipline as stated by Calvin, though a Lasco mentions but
two aims, just as our Church Order does, and though Voetius speaks
of a sevenfold purpose, while Dr. Rutgers mentions the three which

300

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Calvin already set forth, although Rutgers gives these three purposes
in the reverse order from Calvin. Calvin’s order is certainly the
logical one, whereas Rutger’s order is more the psychological and
practical one.

ARTICLE LXXII.

In case any one errs in doctrine or offends in conduct as long
as the sin is of a private character , not awing public offense ,
the rule clearly prescribed by Christ in Matt. 18 shall be fol-
lowed.

CAUSES FOR DISCIPLINE AND THE RULE FOR
PRIVATE OFFENSES

The two matters covered by Article 72 are indicated above. We first
speak of the causes for discipline which Article 72 recognizes and
shall then consider the rule which is to be followed regarding private
sins.

1. Causes for discipline:

Causes for discipline are two-fold in character according to the con-
viction of our Churches expressed in Article 72. We read: “In case
any one errs in doctrine or offends in conduct . . .” Errors in doctrine
or life shall constitute cause for discipline, so our Churches have
agreed by accepting the present article. Offenses in doctrine and life
have been considered Biblical causes for discipline by the Reformed
Churches since the days of the Reformation. This appears not only
from the various synodical decisions regarding discipline, but also
from the answer to the 85th question of the Heidelberg Catechism
which states that Christian discipline is to be applied to those who
“maintain doctrines or practices” inconsistent with Christianity. This
same reply also speaks of those who refuse to “renounce their errors
and wicked course of life.”

As to early conclusion regarding just grounds for discinline the
Wezelian Convention of Reformed Churches, 1568, decided that one
who advocated strange teachings and heresies, secretly or publicly,
should be disciplined, (Chap. VIII, 7) and also that one who led an
evil life should be censured. (Chap. VIII, 9.) The first regular Synod,
Emden, 1571, maintained these two causes for discipline (Art. 26).
Following Synods have maintained in substance what this first Synod
adopted. We still find these selfsame grounds in Article 72 of the
Church Order.

This position of our Church Order is certainly in keeping with Holy
Writ. Doctrinal errors, worthy of discipline do not include, according
to the Bible, such matters as the abstention from certain foods or the
keeping of certain special days. (Rom. 14.) But it does include false
prophesyings or teachings (Matt. 7:15, 2-23; Acts 20: 28-30; Gal.
1: 8,9); the raising up of discord and occasion for sin (Rom. 16:17,
18); the denial of the resurrection from the dead (I Cor. 15:12-17;
II Tim. 2:16-18 and I Tim. 1:18-20); denial of Christ’s Sonship and
His incarnation (I John 2:22; 4:2,3; II John 7-11).

But Scripture also condemns ungodly conduct, excluding those who
persist in such sins from heaven and enjoining the Churches to dbs-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

301

cipline them. For example: the lying of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts
6:1-11); the simony of Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:18-24); the sin of
incest in Corinth’s Church (I Cor. 5:1-5,13); and furthermore all
kinds of extreme sins and immorality as adultery, theft, covetousness,
drunkenness, false testimony, etc. (I Cor. 6:9,10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph.
5:3-5; Heb. 13:4; Rev. 21:8).

When does error in doctrine or life merit discipline? When the
sin of the transgressor gives offense, i.e., when a sin tends to lead
others into sin, and when the guilty party rejects the admonition
offered and persists in his sin. Not every sin and error in doctrine
and life calls for discipline in the formal sense of that word. We are
all imperfect. We all sin with word and deed, in doctrine and life.
These sins should be exposed and condemned in the preaching of
God’s Word and we should all be admonished by each other as believ-
ers, and particularly by the office-bearers as overseers at the time
of home-visitation or at special occasions. But discipline in the formal
sense is not initiated unless the matter is serious and offensive, and
unless the sinner refuses to repent and change, as we have indicated.

2. When does the rule of Matt. 18 apply?

The Reformed Churches answer (cf. the present article) . . as
long as the sin is of a private character, not giving public offense,
the rule clearly prescribed by Christ in Matt. 18 shall be followed.”

This provision has been incorporated in the Church Order from the
very outset. True, the Wezelian Convention applied this rule only to
errors in life, and not to errors in doctrine*. If one became erroneous
in doctrine his sin had to be reported to the Church forthwith. But
the Synod of Emden, 1571, only three years later, made the rule of
Matt. 18 applicable to transgressors regarding the doctrines of Holy
Writ, as well as to transgressors regarding Christian life.

The Churches at that time held that in Matt. 18 Christ was refer-
ring to errors in doctrine as well as to personal offenses or unchris-
tian conduct. Present day reliable commentators agree that Christ
referred only to unchristian conduct of one toward another. But the
example and instruction which Christ gives us in Matt. 18 regarding
personal offenses which are not generally known, and as such may
be termed secret sins, that example and instruction may certainly be
applied to all kinds of private sins, including those that are doctrinal
in character. Sins that are not generally known should not be revealed
unless the nature of the transgression should require such, (for ex-
ample: theft, murder, etc., being crimes against the civil institutions)
or that the impenitence of the transgressor should require such.
“Love beareth (covereth) all things. (I Cor. 13:7, cf. margin, A.R.V.)
“Love covereth a multitude of sins.” (I Peter 4:8.) It is our duty
and privilege to seek the erring brother’s conversion from his sin.
For “he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save
a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.” (James
5:19, 20.)

Even though one therefore should hold that Matt. 18 speaks only
of personal offenses, yet it should be evident that we must distinguish
between secret and public sins. Secret sins then are sins known only
to one or to a few persons, to a limited number, and which sins have
consequently not given general offense.

Matt. 18 states very plainly how one is to deal with a brother who
has committed a sin which is still secret. The brother against whom
the sin has been committed is to go to the transgressor and show
him his fault privately. This injunction of our Lord in no wise re-

302

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

lieves the guilty party from going to the offended brother in order
to confess his wrong. Not at all (cf. Matt. 5:23,24). The transgres-
sor should do so. But the offended brother should not wait until the
offender calls on him, but he must go to the transgressor and en-
deavor to convince him of his wrong in order to save him from his
sin and ruin. For: “if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother,”
i.e., for the kingdom of heaven. If that end be reached, the whole
matter is thereby concluded.

If the guilty party refuses to admit his guilt and to make amends
if necessary and possible, then the rule of Matt. 18 requires that the
offended brother repeat his visit taking one or two witnesses with
him. These witnesses should be reliable Christians, themselves of
good repute. As a rule it will be advisable to choose the witnesses
from the same Church to which the erring brother belongs. One or
two witnesses are to be present so that “at the mouth of two wit-
nesses or three every word be established.” Statements made by the
erring brother may have to be verified before the Consistory.

If the sinner does not yet repent and consequently a third admoni-
tion becomes necessary, then, “it must be told unto the church.”
Jesus is here seemingly thinking of the little group of followers who
believed on Him and who would eventually form the nucleus of the
New Testament Church. If a sinner will not repent, the aggrieved
party will report the error and plight of the transgressor to the
Church so that the whole Church, particularly through its office-
bearers as representative of Christ Himself, may labor with the erring
one for his return.

(It may be noted that Christ here assigns the work of discipline
to the particular Church. There is where ecclesiastical discipline con-
sequently belongs essentially.)

After all admonitions prove to be futile the sinner should be re-
garded by the Church as “a Gentile and a publican.” That is to say:
one that is outside of the Church of Christ and the kingdom of God.

ARTICLE LXXIII.

Secret sins of which the sinner repents , after being admon-
ished by one person in private or in the presence of two or three
witnesses , shall not be laid before the Consistory.

SECRET SINS REPENTED

This 73rd article of our Church Order was originally adopted by
the first Synod of the Reformed Churches of Holland, that of Emden,
1571. In Article 27 of the Church Order of this Synod we find literally
the provision of our present Article 73. But in addition the Synod
of Emden also ruled that secret sins, though repented of, which con-
stitute great danger to State or Church such as treason, or the mis-
leading of souls, (als daar zyn Verraderije, ofte verleydinge der
zielen) should be reported to the Minister of the Church, so that, his
advice having been gained, one might know what to do.

Seven years later the Synod of Dort, 1578, dropped this second pro-
vision of the present article and maintained only the first provision.
Thus the article reads today. Common sense, however, still tells us
that in case a brother or sister has committed a very grievous and

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

303

dangerous sin, that then it may be to his own best interest and the
safety of others, that at least his Minister be informed. In such ex-
treme cases the matter should be reported confidentially, and in some
cases if possible with the transgressor’s consent.

1. The duty of individual Christians regarding discipline.

Article 73 is a direct continuation of Article 72 which article pre-
scribed that the rule of Matt. 18 should be put into practice when
private or secret sins were committed. We need not repeat what has
already been said as we considered Article 72.

But it is well to note why the Church Order demands, also in this
article, that discipline should begin with the believers as individuals
and not with the Consistory. In the first place, this is the rule be-
cause Christ so ordained in unmistakable words in Matt. 18 as we
have seen. Secondly, many passages in the Bible prescribe mutual
discipline. I Thess. 5:11: “Wherefore exhort one another, and build
each other up, even as also ye do.” Heb. 3:12, 13: “Take heed, breth-
ren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of un-
belief, in falling away from the living God: but exhort one another
day by day, so long as it is called To-day. . .” Rom. 15:14: “And I
myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye yourselves
are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish
one another.” This mutual exhortation, urged upon us by Holy Writ,
becomes mutual discipline when there is a specific transgression. Gal.
6:1, “Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who
are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, looking to
thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” James 5:19,20, “My brethren, if
any among you err from the truth and one convert him; let him know,
that he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save
a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins.”

Furthermore it may be remarked that Scripture enjoins mutual dis-
cipline since all believers are anointed with the Holy Spirit, sharing
the anointing of Christ, to be prophets, priests, and kings under Him.
(Cf. I Peter 2:9 and also Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 32.) We rightly
speak of all believers as office-bearers, as our fathers spoke of “het
ambt aller geloovigen.”

New Testament believers particularly should not be treated as
minors which have no voice in matters (Roman Catholicism), but as
having come to years of majority, having definite rights and duties.
Official, ecclesiastical admonition and discipline is but the continuation
of mutual, believer’s discipline. When the latter fails the former be-
gins to function. And again, when believer’s discipline cannot act
with a view to the best interests of the individual involved and the
Church concerned (as in ,the case of public sins) the special offices
begin to act forthwith and initiate disciplinary action. And when
Church members refuse to do their Christian duty toward each other
and no longer admonish each other, but desire to leave it all to the
Consistory, then the backbone of Church discipline is severely injured.
Much to the detriment of the Churches concerned, of course. Says
Dr. F. L. Rutgers: “The decay of discipline, which began already in
the beginning of the 17th century, should certainly be attributed to
a large extent to the fact that in the convictions of the church mem-
bers this principle of our Church Order had been weakened.”*

Through the preaching of the Word and through personal admoni-
tion the believers should be urged to maintain this Biblical principle.

• Collegfe-Voordrachten, etc., 1918, p. 37.

304

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

It may seem much easier merely to report a matter to the Consistory,
but personal admonition according to the rule of Matt. 18 should pre-
cede. Anyone who refuses to do his duty on this score, anyone who
would refuse persistently to act according to the rule of Matt. 18
would make himself worthy of discipline.

2. Can secret and public sins be differentiated?

It is impossible to differentiate strictly between secret and public
sins. In general it may be said that sins may be regarded as being
secret when they have been committed secretly and when subsequently
the transgression has not become known. A sin committed in secret,
but not kept secret, is not to be regarded as a secret sin but as a
public sin.

Furthermore, in a large Church a sin known to five or six might
be considered to be secret, whereas in a very small Church this sin
might be regarded as no longer secret. Circumstances alter cases,
also regarding this question. As long as a sin is known only to a very
limited number, the sinner should be labored with accordingly, par-
ticularly if the matter can be kept secret. If a matter is bound to
become an “open secret/’ that fact may lead a believer and a Con-
sistory to regard the matter as a public sin, though as yet the matter
is known to only some. Those who help spread a matter are cer-
tainly guilty of a great sin, and should be admonished accordingly.

A public sin is one which from its very nature is generally known,
or which had to be made known to the Consistory because the sinner
refused to repent. Sins committed in public, or in the presence of
many, or reported in the newspapers, are public and these should be
reported to the Consistory, or the Consistory should take action even
though no one comes to report, either from neglect or because it is
well-known that the Consistory members bear knowledge of the case.

Jansen reports that the Synod of 1586, ’s Gravenhage, was asked
to give a distinctive description of secret and public sins. The Synod
refused to do so. No Synod and no individual can do so, for reasons
stated above, and because every case has its own peculiar setting.
Never should we attempt to catalog sins as either secret or public.
Reformed Church government does not lay down hard and fast rules
going into great detail, but merely establishes certain leading clearly
enunciated Biblical principles. This is enough and works for the safety
of individual believers and their Churches, also in matters of disci-
pline.

3. Secret sins, duly repented of, are not to be brought before
the Consistory.

Article 73 specifies very definitely that secret sins which have been
dealt with according to Christ’s rule of Matt. 18 and of which the
transgressors have repented, shall not be reported to the Consistory.
This is as it should be. When discipline has reached the end sought,
discipline ends. Matt. 18 says very plainly: “If he hear thee, thou
hast gained thy brother.” Only in case the guilty one refuses to re-
pent does Christ prescribe further action. Secret sin should be kept
secret unless the obstinacy, the unwillingness of the sinner to admit
and repent, makes a revelation of the sin committed necessary.

And he who admonishes a guilty brother should always be anxious
for a confession, so that the matter may not become public. Never
should one go through the prescribed course of Matt. 18 and our
Church Order just to be able to report the matter to the Consistory.
Good-will, eagerness, and Christian charity should be prominent as

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

306

we seek to correct and persuade each other. A haughty, superior at-
titude embitters and divides, and often hardens a sinner in his sin.
Let those who in the way of God's providence are called upon to ad-
monish others do so humbly and by all means prayerfully.

ARTICLE LXXIV.

If any one, having been admonished in love concerning a se-
cret sin by two or three persons, does not give heed, or other-
wise has committed a public sin, the matter shall be reported
to the Consistory.

SINS TO BE REPORTED TO CONSISTORY

1. When sins must be reported to the Consistory.

The first major gatherings of the Reformed Churches of Holland,
the Wezelian Convention, concluded that if one stubbornly and re-
peatedly rejected the brotherly admonitions, his sin should be re-
ported to the Consistory. Furthermore, sins committed publicly and
with public offense should be reported to the Consistories. (Cf. Acts
of Wezel, Chap. 8, Art. 9, 10.) The first Synod, Emden, 1671, unified
these two articles of Wezel into one (Emden, Art. 38) and wrote
Article 74 (38) into the Church Order as it now reads, except that
the Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1587, inserted the words “in love.” (Art.
67, 1586.) Some believers would comply with the letter of Christ’s
rule of Matt. 18, but not with the spirit. Therefore this last mentioned
Synod caused the article to read: “If anyone, having been admonished
in love concerning a secret sin . . .” Article 74 therefore stipulates
that a secret sin of which the guilty party will not repent after hav-
ing been admonished according to the rule of Matt. 18, must be
reported to the Consistory. Likewise that public sins must be reported
to the Consistory.

Discipline must be exercised — as noted in our consideration of
Article 71 — that the name of God may not be blasphemed by the
world; to safeguard the loyal members of the Church; and to move
the sinner to shame and repentance. If this three-fold aim has not
been attained through private admonitions and the labors of believers
performed according to Matt. 18, then the office-bearers, the over-
seers of God’s Church, should be notified that they may endeavor to
accomplish as special servants of Christ what mutual discipline
failed to accomplish. When labors of love performed by dint of the
general office of all believers are fruitless, the whole Church through
its Christ appointed officers must endeavor to correct and save the
erring one.

Public sins are to be reported to the Consistory forthwith, not be-
cause the general office of all believers has no duties to perform in
such cases, but because of the public offense given, which offense
must be removed as soon as possible and because the sin is already
known to many and therefore its immediate revelation to the Con-
sistory cannot be termed uncharitable. Fellow believers must certain-
ly show concern when one of their number errs. They should ad-
monish the erring also in case the sin committed is public. But the
public offense, the blot upon God’s Church and His sacred name must
be removed as soon as possible, and that can only be done publicly.

306 THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

Consequently public sins are to be reported to the Consistory forth-
with.

Why are these sins — secret sins not repented of and public sins —
to be reported to the Consistory? Does not Matt. 18:17 say: “tell it
unto the church” (margin: Congregation)? Indeed. However, there
is no conflict between the words of Christ and the words of our
Church Order. The Church or congregation at the time when Christ
spoke the words of Matt. 18, was not yet organized. At a later day,
through the Apostles, Christ ordained Elders in every Church in order
that these should oversee and govern the Churches. Consequently
Article 74 specifies that report must be made to the Consistory. The
Elders represent both Christ and His Church, for Christ functions
through the Church. It certainly would not do, after Christ has ap-
pointed rulers in His Churches, to ignore these Christ-appointed lead-
ers and go to the body of believers directly. Moreover the best
interest of all concerned demands that the office-bearers be informed
and that they take all necessary action for the whole congregation.
If need be, if irrepentance so require, the whole congregation will be
informed, step by step, so that the whole Church may do its duty
toward the erring one, praying for him, admonishing him, by giving
active or passive approval of what the Consistory is doing, etc. And
thus the whole Church will take action. The office-bearers are the
organs through which the congregation functions and under whose
leadership the believers act.

2. How reports are to be made to Consistories.

A Consistory need not always wait until a transgression is reported
to it before taking action. A sin may be so commonly known that
virtually the whole Consistory bears knowledge of the facts. In such
a case no one will deem it necessary to make a report to the Con-
sistory. The Elders can take action upon their own knowledge of facts.

Furthermore, in case a grievous sin has been committed a sinner
may come to the Consistory of his own accord to confess, knowing
perhaps that sooner or later the sin will become public. In such a
case the Consistory may and must take action, though that action
may merely be an announcement to the Church that the party in
question has confessed a certain sin before God and the Consistory.

Young people, for instance, who transgress the Seventh Command-
ment with a resultant early marriage and parenthood may and should
confess their sin before the Consistory of their own accord as soon
as possible. Their secret sin will soon be generally known, and for
all concerned an early announcement regarding penitence is desirable.
Thus there may be other instances in which a sinner desires to con-
fess his sin unknown to others, before the Consistory.

He who has labored with an erring brother according to Matt. 18,
but without success, should go to the Consistory meeting to report the
case. It is better that the reporter go to the Consistory meeting than
that he merely gives a message to one or two Consistory members.
The whole Consistory should hear the facts first hand.

May one who is not a member of the Church to which one accused
belongs come with grievances? Most assuredly. We have a duty to-
ward all our fellow-believers whether they belong to the same local
Church or not.

May a Consistory receive a charge against one of its members from
one who is not Christian Reformed? Certainly, as long as the wit-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

307

ness is known to be trustworthy, and if he is able and willing to give
definite information, as to the nature of the sin committed, time,
place, etc. Should the charge concern a secret sin and the reporter
be a professing Christian, then of course, the Consistory must make
sure that the rule of Matt. 18 has been observed.

Consistories should be very careful not to begin an investigation
upon the report of an unbeliever who might come with charges against
a believer. On the other hand, if the unbeliever is known to be reli-
able in his testimony, no liar, then a charge made even by an unbe-
liever should be investigated, provided, of course, that the accuser is
willing and able to give details as to time, place, etc. Guesses and
suspicions should receive no consideration on the part of the Elders,
no matter who pleases to present them.

As a rule unsigned letters containing charges against a member
should be laid aside and should not even be received for information.
Nevertheless, though no one has a right to make unsigned charges,
if the Consistory fears that charges contained in such a letter are
well-founded and if the matter be serious, then a quiet investigation
is advisable. Persistent and general rumors may also require quiet
action on the part of a Consistory in order that the good name of
an innocent brother be cleared, if he is innocent, or else, that the
offense be removed and the sinner may be corrected. Those who
spread false rumors, if they can be located, should be admonished.
And those who spread rumors founded on fact without following the
rule of Matt. 18 should likewise be admonished and if need be disci-
plined.

3. Regarding investigations by Consistories.

When a Consistory finds that a certain charge or report requires
investigation it should do its utmost to carry on the investigation
impartially. He who is accused must receive ample opportunity to
defend himself if he denies guilt. He may defend himself in person,
orally, or by written statement. During the 16th and 17th centuries
those under suspicion and under charge were even permitted to bring
someone to talk for them, someone to be his advocate. There can be
no objections against this practice. There is much in its favor. Some-
times the accused party has but little ability to state his own case
clearly. Sometimes those under accusation are too nervous or agi-
tated to present their cases in a desirable fashion. Therefore as long
as the representatives of those accused are reliable and sincere Chris-
tians who aim to give a fair presentation of the facts and who agree
to abide by the rules of the assembly — Consistory, Classis, or Synod,
whichever the case may be — then there is no objection.

As stands to reason the Consistory should hear only trustworthy
witnesses, being either members in good standing, not under censure
for dishonesty, or some other trustworthy persons, not belonging to
the Church. The Consistory should carefully weigh the evidence pre-
sented and should not reach a hasty conclusion.

Very seldom should Consistories place people under oath. Our yea,
should be yea, and our nay, nay. But if urgency require, an oath
may be taken. The trial should be dignified, conducted prayerfully,
and absolutely impartial. The procedure should not become overly
technical. Consistories do not conduct court trials in the civil sense
of the word. Each case should be investigated not according to cer-
tain set and highly technical rules, but rather freely, as fairness and

308

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

sanctified common sense may indicate for every specific case. The
only purpose of an ecclesiastical investigation is to determine whether
or not the accused party is guilty of a censurable sin. If an accusa-
tion proves to be unfounded, the accuser must retract his charge. If
he persistently refuses to do so, he himself would ultimately become
an object of discipline.

If in any case the Consistory cannot come to a definite conclusion,
the Consistory should refrain from taking any action. If the parties
involved in a charge in which the Consistory cannot reach a conclu-
sion flatly contradict each other so that evidently one or the other
must be lying, then both parties should be admonished very seriously,
so that he who wilfully and consciously lies may not continue in his
terrible sin and become hardened in his transgression, but may rather
confess his fearful sin.

If guilt cannot be established in a given case, but the evidence
points in the direction of guilt, then the party should be urged to
consider matters very prayerfully, telling him also that if at any
future time his Christian conscience should smite him and accuse him
of guilt, to come to the Consistory to confess without hesitation and
without delay. For the rest, Consistories can only place cases that
cannot be established for or against an accused brother into the hands
of Him who tries the heart and reipis omnisciently and who will re-
ward both the innocent and the guilty righteously.

If the guilt of one accused is established beyond a just doubt, either
through a confession on the part of one guilty or upon due investi-
gation, the Consistory proceeds to admonish such a one.

If repentence follows, then complete reconciliation with the ag-
grieved parties, and in case of public sins with the whole Church, can
follow. If, however, the party concerned has sinned repeatedly, or if
the offense is very grievous, it may be well for both the transgress^
and the Church that he be ordered to abstain from using the Sacra-
ments for the time being. If the guilty party, having confessed his
guilt and professed repentence, gives proof of his sincerity by a
Godly walk, he should be fully reinstated in all his rights. If a Con-
sistory deems it advisable to put a repentant sinner on probation,
this need not be announced to the Church. His declaration of repent-
ance may be announced without delay. But the fact that he is not
as yet to partake of the Sacraments is a matter between the party
concerned and the Consistory. Only in extreme cases should the
matter of probation be announced to the congregation. Probation
period should not last longer than necessary. As soon as one has
manifested his sincerity by a Godly walk he should be re-admitted
to all the privileges of the Church. Probation periods were perhaps
more common in former years than they are now. They should not
occur often. As a rule the repentant sinner should be received upon
his testimony in the spirit of Christian love which gladly forgives
and is eager to believe. Probation periods may range from three or
six months to two years. We would not advise ever to extend the
period beyond a two year term.

If one refuses to repent, censure follows as indicated in succeeding
articles of the Church Order.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

309

ARTICLE LXXV.

The reconciliation of all such sins as are of their nature of a
public character, or have become public because the admonition
of the Church was despised, shall take place (upon sufficient
evidence of repentance) in such a manner as the Consistory
shall deem conducive to the edification of each Church. Whether
in particular cases this shall take place in public, shall, when
there is a difference of opinion about it in the Consistory, be
considered with the advice of two neighboring Churches or of
the Classis.

RECONCILIATION WITH THE CHURCH

Article 75 as it reads in our Church Order can be tracked back to
Article 29 of the Church Order of the Synod of Emden, 1571. This
article provided in substance that reconciliation should not take place
publicly in the presence of the Church unless the whole Consistory
agreed that it was advisable. The Synod of 1586 provided that in
Churches served by only one Minister, no public reconciliation should
take place, except with the advice of two neighboring Churches (1586,
Art. 68). The Synod of Dort, 1618-19, left the article as revised in
1586. Only it now became Article 75, as it is still today. The Synod
of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, 1905, adopted the read-
ing which we now have, our Synod of 1914 following the lead of the
Holland Churches, with only this difference: For the Churches in Hol-
land the article merely provides that the advice of two neighboring
Churches shall be gained before a Consistory with only one Minister
is to decide that a certain reconciliation shall take place before the
Church, whereas our Article 75 reads: “. . . with the advice of two
neighboring Churches or of the Classis.”

1. Which cases demand reconciliation with the Church?

Only those cases in which the sin is public, either from the very
nature of the transgression, or because the sinner refused to heed the
admonition of the Consistory so that the Congregation had to be in-
formed of the transgressor’s sin and failure to repent.

Sins which are private and which are repented of should not be
published. The rule of Matt. 18 is very clear on this point. It is also
possible that a sinner does not repent when he is admonished by one
or two or more individuals, but that he does repent when the Con-
sistory begins to labor with him. In such a case reconciliation takes
place privately, either before the whole Consistory or before a com-
mittee of the Consistory, depending on the nature of the sin and other
circumstances. The believers who admonished him according to the
Saviour’s rule of Matt. 18 should be present at this reconciliation or
they should be notified that reconciliation has taken place. Here also
the sin and the circumstances involved should determine the procedure
to be followed. But under no circumstance should a Consistory begin
to reveal faults and transgressions of which the Congregation is not
aware, if the party concerned gives clear proof of repentance.

But if the sin is known to the Church, because of its very nature,
or because the Consistory had to announce the transgressor’s sin to
the Church in the process of discipline, because the guilty party would
not repent, then, upon repentance the question arises: How must
reconciliation with the Church take place? And to this question
Article 75 supplies the answer.

310

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

2. Conditions for reconciliation.

Reconciliation of repentant sinners shall take place “upon sufficient
evidence of repen tance,” Article 75 stipulates. Experience has taught
the Churches that some people make a confession readily, because it
is not heartfelt and is made merely to settle a matter externally.
Often these transgressors fall back into the same sins repeatedly.
Thus the name of God and His Church is defamed and the offense
becomes great. Confessions frequently and easily violated undermine
Church discipline, especially in the mind of the youthful and weak.
For these reasons, and for the sake of the sinning party Synod of
1581 added the condition under consideration. This condition requires
that Consistories do not accept a confession at face value, unless it
has reasons to believe that the confessor is sincere. In some cases the
Consistory will have to judge regarding the sincerity of a confession
not so much by the word uttered or even emotionalism displayed, but
rather by the walk of life manifested after the transgression occurs
or after repentance was professed. As stands to reason, no Consis-
tory should doubt a confessor’s sincerity unless he has given occasion
for such doubt by past experience, or by his present doubtful attitude.

In case of extreme sins a Consistory may feel itself bound to with-
hold the privileges of membership for the time being, especially that
of partaking of the sacraments, Synod of 1578, Dort, even made a
provision for this step in the Church Order (see Art. 98, Dort, 1578).
This article provides that those who have committed grievous sins,
disgraceful to the Church or also punishable by the State, even though
they manifest repentance, shall nevertheless be excluded from the
Lord’s Supper to remove the offense, and to test the genuineness of
their repentance. This article was left out of the Church Order by
the next Synod, 1581. Nevertheless, all authorities agree that a Con-
sistory has the right and duty to exclude a repentant sinner from
the Sacraments for the time being. This right is also expressed by
implication in the present article and its provision that reconciliation
shall take place “upon sufficient evidence of repentance.” See our con-
cluding remarks regarding this same matter under Article 74.

3. Should reconciliation take place before the Consistory only, or also
in the presence of the congregation?

This question is to be answered by each Consistory for each indi-
vidual case. But if there is a difference of opinion in the Consistory
as a case comes up for consideration, so that the Consistory cannot
reach a unanimous decision, then, so Article 75 stipulates, the matter
should not be decided by a majority vote, but then the Consistory
must first gain the advice of two neighboring Churches or of Classis.
This prescribed advice, as Jansen points out, does not imply that two
other Consistories or that Classis decides the matter, nor that the
Consistory concerned merely gains the advice and then decides as it
sees fit regardless of the advice given. But it means that the respon-
sible Consistory will take a decision in conformity with the advice
received. If a Classis meeting is near at hand, the matter can be
conveniently submitted to Classis. Otherwise two neighboring Con-
sistories are asked to meet with the Consistory seeking advice, and
then the three Consistories consider the matter together as one body,
and seek to arrive at a united stand. However, each Consistory
should take a separate vote. If the Consistory which seeks the advice
of two neighboring Consistories can not agree with the choice of these
Consistories, the matter is presented to Classis for disposition.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

311

In the Reformed Churches of Holland Consistories which have more
than one Minister (some have several) decide this matter by majority
vote. The smaller Churches having only one Minister call for the
advice of two neighboring Churches. The advice of Classis is not
mentioned in the present redaction of Article 75 of the Reformed
Churches of Holland. It may be noted, however, that the Synod of
Middelburg, 1581, stipulated that public reconciliations should take
place with the advice of Classis. (Art. 63, 1581.)

Article 75 does not specify when reconciliation shall be before the
Consistory and when before the Church also. Instances and examples
are not given either. Every case must be judged in its own setting
and upon its own merits or demerits. In general Consistories should
be guided by considerations as these: Which form of reconciliation
(public or private) will glorify God most? Which is best for the
Church? Which form is best for the repentant sinner? Consistories
should not give needless publicity to sins committed through confes-
sions or reconciliations before the whole Church in public meeting.
Neither should the Consistory permit the name of a repentant sinner
to be dishonored before men, if this can be avoided. On the other hand,
offensive sins greatly dishonoring God’s name and the Church of
Christ should be confessed openly and personally so that all may see
and know that repentance has taken place and so that the offense
may be removed the more effectively. A public reconciliation is very
often the best also for the sinner concerned. It tends to remove bar-
riers which otherwise may linger.

There is no special Form for the reconciliation of which Article 75
speaks, neither for a reconciliation before the Consistory, nor for a
reconciliation before the whole Church. The manner of reconciliation
is left entirely to the Consistory. It must consider, also regarding this
matter, the welfare of all concerned. If reconciliation is made before
the Consistory certain definite questions should be answered, and the
content of these should be included in the announcement to the Church.
Matters of discipline should, as stands to reason, not be printed on
bulletins, but announced verbally from the pulpit. Announcement to
the congregation takes place to remove the offense given, and to
reconcile the sinner with all his fellow believers.

When reconciliation is to take place in the midst of the congrega-
tion, the Consistory should draft a brief statement in which the char-
acter of the sin committed is mentioned, and in which emphasis is
placed on the fact of repentance and consequent reconciliation. The
purpose of this public confession of guilt and profession of repentance
is reconciliation and reinstatement. Its purpose is not the adminis-
tration of a final word of rebuke, publicly administered for emphasis’
sake.

Synods of 1908 and 1930 ruled that: “In case of transgression of
the Seventh Commandment before marriage, the form of confession
is left to the Consistory, provided the confession is made (at least)
before the whole Consistory. The advisability of announcement of
the names to the congregation shall be determined by the Consistory
in each case.” (Cf. Stuart and Hoeksema’s Church Order edition, un-
der Art. 75.)

It may be questioned whether it is wise to single out a special sin,
as the one referred to, and to make a special rule for it. It is apt to
create the impression that this is the sin par excellence. The only
justification for special rules of this kind can be that the sins in ques-
tion are very prevalent and on the increase. Reconciliation in public
or by a special announcement will emphasize the gravity of the sin

312

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

and will help to put others on their guard. But why not use, in de-
cisions of this kind, the term of the Church Order, i.e., “reconcilia-
tion" which expresses the essence of that which has or is taking place
both carefully and beautifully?

Supposing one who is being admonished and censured moves and
becomes a member of another of our Churches, which Consistory
should then complete the reconciliation, revoking the suspension, etc.?
The Consistory of his new Church. By this Church he has been re-
ceived as a censured and erring member and the new Consistory al-
ways continues the process of censure where the former Consistory
left off. But our confederation, our bonds of Church unity, would re-
quire that the former Consistory, which initiated censure be recog-
nized and be asked for their approval, for they may know the case
far better than the new Consistory. In case of extreme sins generally
known it is advisable, both for the Church and for the sinner, that
announcement of the transgressor’s repentance be made to the former
Church also. When serious differences of opinion arise between two
Consistories in cases as suggested, the advice of Classis should be
sought.

ARTICLE LXXVI.

Such as obstinately reject the admonition of the Consistory,
and likewise those who have committed a public or otherwise
aross sin, shall be suspended from the Lord's Supper. And if he,
having been suspended, after repeated admonitions, shows no
signs of repentance, the Consistory shall at last proceed to the
extreme remedy, namely excommunication, agreeably to the form
adopted for that purpose according to the Word of God. But no
one shall be excommunicated except with consent of Classis.

SUSPENSION FROM THE LORD’S SUPPER

This article concerns temporary suspension or debarment from the
Lord’s Supper. Suspension from the Lord’s Table as a disciplinary
measure has been practiced by the Reformed Churches from the very
beginning. In Geneva, under Calvin’s leadership it was in force. The
Reformed Churches of France, of Germany, Scotland, and the Nether-
lands all adopted temporary suspensions as provided for in Calvin’s
Church Order.*

The essence of our present Article 76 may be found in the Church
Order of Emden, 1671. Later Synods made additions, but no essential
changes.

1. Cases which require suspension from the Lord’s Table.

The Synod of Emden, 1571, merely mentioned, “Such as obstinately
reject the admonition of the Consistory.” (Emden, Art. 30.) The
Synod of Middelburg, 1581, added, “and likewise those who have com-
mitted a public or otherwise gross sin.” (Middelburg, Art. 62.)

The first instance refers to such as have rejected the admonition
of mutual or believers discipline according to Matt. 18. When these
private admonitions remain fruitless the Consistory is notified. (Cf.

• Dr. F. L. Rutgera, Oollege-Voordraclxten, 1918, p. 52.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

313

our discussion of Art. 74.) The Consistory first of all investigates
to see if the claims lodged against a brother or sister are well-founded.
If the Consistory finds guilt, it proceeds to admonish the transgressor
repeatedly. If the sinner takes the admonition of the Consistory to
heart and repents, ecclesiastical discipline in the stricter, technical
sense of the word is not necessary. Reconciliation with the aggrieved
parties takes place, and the matter is ended. But if, at the other hand
the transgressor obstinately rejects the admonition of the Consistory,
then he is to be suspended from the Lord’s Supper. Let it be clear
therefore that only after persistent refusal to heed the admonition
of the Consistory, discipline technically begins. Obstinate rejection
of the Consistory’s admonition is not always outspoken and blunt.
Sometimes the transgressor shows only by his conduct that he refuses
to heed the admonition given. But anyone who fails to admit his fault
and he who fails to mend his ways is guilty of obstinate rejection of
admonition. Now then, if the transgressor clearly manifests this re-
fusal to repent he is to be suspended from the Lord’s Table. It is
definitely irrepentance which brings forth suspension, not the sin com-
mitted. There is forgiveness for every sin, if only that sin is sin-
cerely repented of with Godly sorrow. Even a murderer ready to die
in the electric chair can be admitted to the Lord’s Table if he be re-
pentant.

The second class which calls for suspension according to the present
article comprises those that “have committed a public or otherwise
gross sin.” If a Consistory discovers that one of the members is
guilty of a serious sin, generally known, or a sin definitely offensive
and scandalous, it decides forthwith that the transgressor shall not
partake of the Lord’s Supper until confession has been made, or until
the Consistory grants him permission to do so after confession has
been made.

Sometimes Consistories find it advisable to postpone the celebration
of the Lord’s Supper because of disturbed relationship in the Congre-
gation. Trouble may arise which involves several members in trans-
gressions. No Consistory should determine to postpone the celebra-
tion of the Lord’s Supper except for weighty reasons. But if condi-
tions are much disturbed it is permissible and wise to do so. Such a
postponement is not a disciplinary measure but simply a means to
prevent desecration of the Lord’s Supper and the slandering of God’s
name.

2. The character of suspension according to Art. 76.

Reformed Church government distinguishes between discipline in
the sense of admonition, directed to transgressors by fellow believers
and as individual believers according to Christ’s rule of Matt. 18, or
by the Consistory in its representative and official capacity, and disci-
pline in the sense of admonition by the Consistory plus suspension
of membership rights.

Discipline in this second sense of the word, discipline in the stricter,
more technical sense of the word, has two stages according to the
accepted rules of our Church Order. During the first stage the Con-
sistory labors with the transgressors and bars him from the Lord’s
Supper and all membership privileges — but no announcement is made
to the Congregation; censure is as yet “silent” or secret. (We speak
of silent censure from the Dutch, stille censure.) This first stage of
discipline is regulated and indicated in Article 76 now under consid-
eration. The second stage of discipline is characterized by three dis-
tinct announcements to the congregation, sometimes called first, sec-

314

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ond, and third steps of censure, from the Dutch “eerste, tweede, en
derde trap van censure.” This second stage of discipline is indicated
and regulated in Article 77, the article which we shall consider next.

The first stage of ecclesiastical discipline (Art. 76), silent censure,
is a temporary suspension from the Lord’s Table. The second stage
of ecclesiastical discipline is, as to its character, a definite suspension
from the Lord’s Table. As will be understood, the process may be
halted at any time by sincere repentance on the part of the transgres-
sor. In such a case excommunication does not take place. The stage
of discipline provided for in Article 76 has also been called minor ex-
communication from the Latin excommunicatio minor. This excom-
munication is minor inasmuch as it deprives one temporarily of the
exercise of his membership rights, not of the rights as such. The
second stage of discipline, regulated in Article 77 is then designated
as major excommunication, from the Latin excommunicatio major.
This excommunication is major inasmuch as it deprives one of his
membership rights and that definitely.

The suspension from the Lord’s Supper provided for in Article 76
is therefore disciplinary in character. Sometimes members are kept
from the Lord’s Table although they are not (as yet) objects of
Church discipline in the stricter sense of the word. For example, a
member may have made himself guilty of a grievous sin, known to
many, concerning which he repents just before the Lord’s Supper.
Then to avoid offense, the Consistory may bar the brother concerned
from the Lord’s Table for that celebration.

So also an involved and serious case of discipline may come to a
favorable conclusion through repentance by the guilty one, just be-
fore the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated. Either because the offense
cannot be removed instantly, in a short space of time, or because some
details must still be worked out, the Consistory may see fit to tell
the party concerned not to come to the Lord’s Supper about to be
celebrated. Or again, a case of discipline may present itself just pre-
vious to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The Consistory cannot
fully investigate the case before the time of celebration but evidence
points definitely to guilt. In such a case the Consistory may tell the
party in question to refrain from coming to the Lord’s Table at the
communion service nigh at hand. In Dutch this suspension has been
termed “eenvoudige afhouding” or “voorloopige afhouding.” We would
use the term “simple suspension” or “simple debarment.” The latter
term has this in its favor that it is less likely to be confused with
regular, disciplinary suspension.

Sometimes a Consistory merely advises a member to refrain from
going to the Lord’s Table for a particular celebration nigh at hand.
This is sometimes done if one is at least to some extent guilty of a
minor transgression. The matter does not seem to warrant suspension
but partaking of the Lord’s Supper may offend some. Or, a slight
misunderstanding may arise between two communicants so that
fraternal relationships are disrupted somewhat. Accusations are made
but the whole thing is vague so that the Consistory does not know
where the guilt lies inasfar as there is guilt. If then the celebration
of the Lord’s Supper be nigh at hand, the Consistory may advise
both parties to refrain from going to the Lord’s Table. Let it be well
understood, in these latter cases the Consistory merely advises. The
parties concerned may celebrate the Supper if they so desire.

Voluntary refrainment is also possible. A member may refrain
from coming to the Lord’s Table entirely of his own accord for rea-
sons of his own. He may have committed a sin known to him and a

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

315

small number of others. He may have repented but he may not have
had time to rectify matters inasfar as such is possible. In such a
case he may withhold himself from partaking, although no one has
urged him to do so. Two or more members between whom an un-
Christian spirit has arisen may also agree mutually to refrain from
going to the Lord’s Table until matters have been set right.

3. Course to be followed when suspension and admonitions fail to
bring repentance.

If suspension from the Lord’s Supper and the admonitions of the
Consistory are heeded so that repentance follows, discipline ceases and
reconciliation takes place. But Article 76 tells us what should be done
if the sinner persists in his obstinate rejection of all admonition, even
after membership rights have been suspended. If one refuses to re-
pent even after he has been barred from the Lord’s Table, etc., then
the Consistory continues to admonish him. How often should the Con-
sistory admonish? No figures are given. Each case should be dealt
with according to its own requirements. The Church Order does pre-
scribe “repeated admonitions.” This is as it should be. The trans-
gressor must be warned until the very last. But if all admonitions,
those directed before suspension, during or with the suspension, and
those addressed to the erring one after suspension do not avail, then
the Consistory shall at last proceed to the “extreme remedy.” This
extreme remedy is definite suspension of all membership rights, or
final and complete excommunication. This excommunication is the
“extreme remedy.” Even by this extreme act the Church hopes to
bring about repentance. It desires to save the sinner throughout.

For this excommunication the Churches are to use the “Form
adopted for that purpose.” This Form may be found in our Psalter
Hymnals, appended pages 95, 96. This Form was adopted for the first
time by the Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586.

Excommunication by this Form does not occur very often in our
Churches. Why not ? Are there no deflections ? Are there no members
who by their sins and their refusal to repent make themselves worthy
of excommunication? The Form is seldom used because members un-
der discipline who obstinately refuse to repent as a rule break with
the Church and thus avoid excommunication. But a word of warning
should be spoken in this connection. Synod of 1918, Article 53, de-
cided as follows:

“Synod, considering that the withdrawal from discipline, to which
one has freely subjected himself, and the breaking off of the fellow-
ship with the Church to which one belongs, for reasons which cannot
stand the test of God’s Word, is a sin which should not be esteemed
lightly, and that those who do so should be supplicated continuously
and earnestly that they return from their erroneous way, and that
these should not be released hastily; but (considering) also that one’s
affiliation with the Church as an organization as well as one’s con-
tinuation in the organized Church, should remain to be, according to
Church governmental principles, an act of each one’s own personal
choice, (therefore Synod) judges that no one can continue to be an
object of Church discipline if he persists in resigning his membership.”
(Translated.)

We have no fault to find with this stand of Synod as to its essential
principles. But we do believe that many Consistories accepted “resig-
nation” too easily. We are therefore happy that the Synod of 1936
expressed itself on this matter as it did and adopted the following:

“In such announcements (announcements regarding those that have

316

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

broken with the Church) it should be plainly stated that the person
who resigned his membership in the manner indicated in the decision
of 1918, by that very act has committed a grievous sin and that he
obstinately refuses to listen to the admonition of the Consistory,
though admonished repeatedly and seriously not to commit this sin.
It stands to reason the expressions like ‘accepting the resignation*
should not be used in the announcement, because the full responsibility
for his sinful act must remain with the person who withdraws himself
from the Church.” (Acts of Synod, 1936, p. 121.)

It is true that membership in the organized Church can never be
forced and should remain to be the result of voluntary acts on the
part of all its members. But it is also true that the members at the
time of their confession of faith solemnly promised to be true to the
Church and to submit themselves to church discipline if discipline
should become necessary. Resigning one’s membership is a very griev-
ous sin, and a Consistory should proceed with censuring such a one
unless he determinated persists in breaking his relationship with the
Church. Very often we fear Consistories have accepted resignations
rather quickly in order to be free from the sad duty of excommuni-
cating the party in question. This should never be done. Discipline
must ever run its full course unless the object of discipline makes it
impossible. Then the full responsibility will also rest on his shoulders.
And, Consistories should so labor with resigning members that they
can truthfully announce to the Churches that the utmost has been
done to restrain the member in question from taking this step and
that the responsibility is his.

Article 76 also provides that “no one shall be excommunicated ex-
cept with consent of the Classis.” Article 77 tells us just how and
when this advice of Classis is to be sought.

Every Church and Consistory has a right to exercise discipline.
There are no office-bearers possessing a higher degree of authority
than those of every particular Church. Intrinsically, essentially every
Church has a right to govern itself. But the Churches have agreed as
a matter of wisdom and safety that no Church should act in certain
matters without and against the advice of the other Churches, espe-
cially in matters of discipline, partiality and ill-will may assert itself.
Besides, many cases are involved and difficult. Consequently the ad-
vice of neighboring Churches through Classis is highly desirable. No
one can be excommunicated except with the advice, i.e., in harmony
with the advice of Classis. Only if a Consistory is fully persuaded
that the advice of Classis is contrary to the Word of God or our
Church Order, (our basis of co-operation and union) may it refrain
from deciding in harmony with the advice of Classis. Then the Con-
sistory, of course, submits the case to Synod.

This request for advice is therefore not an appeal. Classis does not
sit as a court of appeal which tries the case for itself. It only checks
upon the work and decisions of the Consistory and advises it accord-
ing to its judgment.

In case the censured party should appeal to Classis, declaring that
the Consistory and Classis are mistaken, then the Classis investigates
as far as is necessary to arrive at a fair conclusion. In such a case
Classis is not bound by its own previous advice.

317

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ARTICLE LXXVII.

After the suspenstoii from the Lord's Table, and subsequent
admonitions, and before proceeding to excommunication, the
obstinacy of the sinner shall be publicly made known to the
congregation, the offense explained, together with the care
bestoiued upon him, in reproof, suspension from the Lord's
iyupper, and repeated admonition , and the congregation shall
be exhorted to speak to him and to pray for him. There shall
be three \such admonitions. In the first the name of the sinner
shall not be mentioned that he be somewhat spared. In the
second, with the consent of the Classis, his name shall be men-
tioned. In the third the congregation shall be informed that
(unless he repent) he will be excluded from the fellowship of
the Church, so that his excommunication, in case he remains
obstinate, may take place with the tacit approbation of the
Church. The interval between the admonitions shall be left to
the discretion of the Consistory .

THE EXCOMMUNICATION

As noted above, Article 76 concerns the first stage of ecclesiastical
discipline. Article 77 concerns the second stage, i.e., the final and
definite suspension of all membership rights, also called excommuni-
cation. Article 77 has often been misinterpreted. Many have thought
that the first step of excommunication according to Article 77 was
identical with the disciplinary provisions of Article 76. These thought
that the first step of public censure was really the same as the silent
censure of Article 76. This, however, is not the case. The suspension
from the Lord’s Table mentioned in Article 76 is not to be confused
with the first admonition or first step of Article 77. Article 76 tells
us that when a sinner refuse to repent, “the Consistory shall at last
proceed to the extreme remedy, namely, excommunication.” Now
Article 77 tells us how the Consistory must proceed in applying this
extreme remedy.

To prevent confusion the Holland Synod of 1906, and our own Synod
of 1914, changed the reading of Article 77 somewhat. The article used
to begin as follows: “Before proceeding to excommunication. .
Now we read: “After the suspension from the Lord’s Table, and sub-
sequent admonitions, and before proceeding to excommunication. . .”
The added words refer to the provisions of Article 76.

1. The course of discipline from the point of silent censure to ex-
communication.

Article 77 provides first of all that a brief account of the case a t
hand shall be given to the congregation whenever a Consistory feels
that it must proceed with discipline. This brief account must include
a statement of the offense committed. This statement should be
couched in general terms, and should not go into details. If possible
the offense should be announced as a sin against one of the Ten Com-
mandments. Thus one guilty of appropriating money unto himself
through falsification of books would be said to be guilty of a sin
against the Eighth Commandment. The announcement must also in-
clude mention of the “care bestowed upon him, in reproof, suspension
from the Lord's Supper, and repeated admonition.” The Consistory
should therefore point out that reproof was given before suspension
from the Lord’s Supper was resorted to; that subsequently the trans-

318

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

gressor was suspended from the Lord’s Table; and that afterwards
the Consistory had still admonished him several times. From all this
“the obstinacy of the sinner” must be clear to the Church. Obstinacy,
refusal to convert himself and to repent, calls for discipline, not the
sin as such. Finally, the congregation is to be exhorted “to speak to
the guilty one, and to pray for him.”

The congregation cannot be urged to speak to the transgressor
until his name is announced to the Church. This takes place if, after
the first step of censure, the sinner persists in his sin. But the con-
gregation can pray for an erring and unrepentant member even
though his name is not known. The reference here is not to congre-
gational prayers which are part of our Sunday services but to our
personal prayers. These prayers are often neglected. This is a griev-
ous sin. The congregation should be much concerned when one errs
in doctrine or life. When one member suffers, all should suffer. And
the congregation should feel that the matter of discipline is its con-
cern, and not that of the Consistory merely.

The first section of Article 77 provides for exhortations to the con-
gregation regarding one worthy of discipline. Next, Article 77 tells
us how many of such exhortations or admonitions there should be.
We read: “There shall be three such admonitions.” These three ad-
monitions, as noted above, are often called three steps. It may be
noted here that these three admonitions are not addressed to the
transgressor but to the Church. The transgressor is admonished,
much oftener than three times. He is urged to repent repeatedly.
But the Church should be urged to labor with and for the erring one
at least three distinct times. Concerning the first admonition or step
we read: “In the first the name of the sinner shall not be mentioned
that he be somewhat spared.” The congregation is informed regard-
ing the sin committed and the labors bestowed on the erring one, etc.,
as we have just seen. But, at the first occasion of announcement and
admonition, the name of the transgressor is not mentioned. The
congregation is only admonished in this first announcement to pray
for the erring one. This admonition should be written out, approved
by the Consistory and thus read to the Church. Extemporaneous an-
nouncements may involve a Church in difficulties. The party con-
cerned may appeal his case to Classis or Synod, and then all parties
involved should know exactly what has been said. Moreover, the ad-
monition must be the conviction not merely of the Minister making
the announcement, but the conviction of the Consistory. The state-
ment must be strictly accurate and objective. As the first section
of Article 77 demands, this announcement should indicate (a) the
nature of the sin committed, (b) the obstinacy of the sinner, (c) the
diligence of the Consistory in admonishing the party concerned and
in suspending him from the Lord’s Supper and in admonishing him
still further, (d) and finally the admonition to the Church to pray
for the transgressor.

Concerning the second admonition to the Church we read: “In the
second, with consent of the Classis, his name shall be mentioned.”
The second admonition is a repetition of the first with this difference,
that in the second admonition the name of the sinner is mentioned
and the announcement is made with the advice of Classis. In the
first admonition the name of the transgressor was not mentioned in
order that he be somewhat spared. In the second his name is men-
tioned so that the congregation may speak to him, and in the hope
that this fact may help him to see the urgency of his situation. A
member’s good name and reputation must be protected, but not at

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

319

the expense of his own true welfare. The advice of Classis is required
as a safeguard against partiality, and in the interest of strict right-
eousness. Moreover, classical advice is invaluable for Consistories not
so well acquainted with the proper procedure in Church discipline.
Concerning the phrase “with the consent of the Classis,” it should
be remarked that our Synod of 1920 would have done better to trans-
late “with the advice of the Classis.” Throughout, the Church Order
speaks of “advice,” and the official Dutch text from which we derived
our translation does not read “met toestemming der Classe,” but,
“met advies der Classe.” Our present translation is clearly a mis-
take, which was overlooked by the Synod of 1920.

“With the advice of Classis (Latin ex classis judicio, i.e., according
to the judgment of Classis) so Jansen emphasizes correctly,* does
not mean : with the permission of Classis, for that would conflict with
the fact that each Church is essentially a self-governing body under
Christ, and that there is no superior authority which can dictate to
the particular Church above the Consistory in the strict sense of the
word. Neither does the expression: with the advice of Classis mean:
after Classis has been consulted. In that case the Consistory could
ask for advice formally and then do as it saw fit. The expression
means: according, or in harmony with, the advice of Classis. This is
one of the matters in which the individual Churches have agreed not
to follow their own judgment independently of the other Churches, but
to follow the judgment of all the other Churches meeting as Classis
for mutual deliberation and counsel. ** The particular Churches,
united in federative bonds according to their intrinsic unity in Christ
and the injunctions and examples of Holy Writ, have agreed to abide
by the opinion of the majority unless to the mind of the Church or
Consistory concerned the opinion of the majority is clearly a violation
of God’s Word and our basis of union. In that case the way of pro-
test and appeal is open, and ultimately, if need be, acquiesence under
protest, or if the voice of conscience will not permit this, separation.

Before a Classis can express its opinion in a given case, it must
ascertain: (a) whether the sin is censurable, (b) whether the admoni-
tions and the suspension from the Lord’s Table according to Article
76 have taken place; (c) whether the first admonition to the Church
has been properly made; (d) whether the Consistory has labored suf-
ficiently with the erring member after the first announcement to the
Church; (e) whether it is clear that the transgressor is and remains
obstinate in his rejection of all admonitions.

If the Classis advises to proceed and to make the second admonition
to the Church, then the Consistory should approve of the announce-
ment to be made to the congregation. This second admonition, briefly
stated should mention (a) the character of the sin committed and
the name of the sinner; (b) the obstinacy of the transgressor also
after the first admonition to the Church; (c) an exhortation to the
Church to speak to the erring one, and to pray for him.

As to the third admonition to the Church we read: “In the third the
congregation shall be informed that (unless he repent) he will be ex-
cluded from the fellowship of the Church.” This admonition is the
last public announcement. In it the Church is informed that the
transgressor in question has remained obstinate and that he will be
excommunicated in the near future (the exact date should be men-
tioned), unless repentance takes place before that time. This last an-

• Cf. Jansen: Xorte Verklaring-, etc., 1923, p. 336.

*• Cf. Bouwman: Gereformeerd Xerkreckt, II. 1934, p. 637.

320

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

nouncement is also called an admonition. The Church is once more
admonished to labor with the transgressor and to pray for him. At
least three or four weeks should elapse between the last admonition
and the actual excommunication in order that the transgressor may
have ample time for prayer and reflection before he is actually ex-
communicated and in order that he may have opportunity to appeal
his case if he so desire.

Should Classis be asked for advice once more before this third ad-
monition, before this third step is taken and excommunication takes
place? Usually this is not done. Jansen favors it, inasmuch as
Article 76 says: “But no one shall be excommunicated except with
consent of the Classis.” However, it may be maintained successfully,
we believe, that this provision is fully met by the advice secured from
Classis before the second admonition to the Church is made. If a
certain Consistory desires the advice of Classis once more, before it
proceeds to excommunicate, there can be nothing against this. When
such advice is sought, it should be given but it cannot be said that
the Church Order requires Consistories to seek it.

2. The excommunication proper.

The excommunication takes place “with the tacit approbation of
the Church.” That is to say, the third announcement is made to the
Church also for this reason, that the congregation may give its silent
approval. The Latin phrase used in the Church Order was “tacitis
ecclesiae suffrages”, i.e., with the silent vote of the Church. The
Church must therefore take an active part in the excommunication
as in all other matters. The Church must approve or disapprove. If
any member is convinced for sufficient reasons that the Consistory
is in error or that the Consistory is too hasty, such a member should
make his objection known to the Consistory. The Consistory should
carefully weigh the evidence presented and rectify any mistakes that
may have been made, or postpone the excommunication. If the Con-
sistory feels that the complaining member has no just grounds for his
objections then the complainer should receive opportunity to appeal
the matter to Classis. That is to say, if the complainer desires to
bring the matter to Classis, the Consistory must not proceed to ex-
communicate but await the opinion of Classis. If nothing is said re-
garding an appeal to Classis, and if the Consistory is fully persuaded
that excommunication should take place at the time announced, then
the Consistory may proceed.

The purpose of excommunication is stated in the following words
in our Form of Excommunication : . to the end that he may hereby

be made (if possible) ashamed of his sins, and likewise that we
may not by this rotten and as yet incurable member, put the whole
body of the Church in danger, and that God’s name may not be
blasphemed.”

The implications and the significance of excommunication are stated
thus: “. . . for the aforesaid reasons we have excommunicated, and
by these, do excommunicate N. from the Church of God, and from
fellowship with Christ, and the holy sacraments, and from all the
spiritual blessings and benefits which God promiseth to and bestows
upon his Church, so long as he obstinately and impenitently persists
in his sins, . . .”

Article 77 finally provides that “The interval between the admoni-
tions shall be left to the discretion of the Consistory.” This is a
very wise ruling. There are no two cases exactly alike, and therefore
each Consistory must decide the question of time, as each case may

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

321

require. As a rule Consistories should move very carefully and slowly.
Usually a number of months will elapse between the various admoni-
tions or steps. Some extreme cases may require speedier action but
often cases will consume not merely months but years before the final
excommunication takes place. Not until the Church has put forth
every means and every effort should the meaningful ban of excom-
munication be applied.

ARTICLE LXXVIII.

Whenever anyone who has been excommunicated desires to
become reconciled to the Church in the way of penitence , it
shall be announced to the Congregation , either before the cele-
bration of the Lord's Supper , or at some other opportune time,
in order that (inasfar as no one can mention anything against
him to the contrary) he may with profession of his conversion
be publicly reinstated, according' to the Form for that purpose.

RECONCILIATION OF EXCOMMUNICATED

The Form of Excommunication calls excommunication “the last
remedy.” One of the reasons for which we apply the ban of excom-
munication is to save the sinner concerned. After all other means
have failed the Church hopes and prays that it may please God to use
this radical and final step in the process of discipline to bring the
transgressor to heartfelt repentance before God. For this reason the
Church Order also speaks of excommunication as “the extreme rem-
edy.” (Article 76.)

Consequently the Churches ever welcomed repentant sinners, even
though such sinners may have been excommunicated. At first Con-
sistories and Classes regulated the reinstatement of banned members
without a regulating rule in the Church Order and without a Form
for readmitting excommunicated persons. It was soon found, how-
ever, that some rule and uniformity was desirable. Synod of ’s Gra-
venhage, 1586, (Article 71) wrote Article 78 as it reads today into
our Church Order.

1. Conditions for reconciliation of the Excommunicated.

Article 78 mentions two conditions which must be satisfied before
one banned from the fellowship of the Church and all its privileges
can be reinstated. First of all, the one excommunicated must desire
reconciliation. It must not be someone else’s desire to which the
excommunicated merely assents, but it must be his own request and
heartfelt desire. Secondly, he must desire reconciliation “in the way
of penitence.” The sincerity of the desire for reconciliation must be
proven by penitence. If the banned person does not give a clear testi-
mony of penitence, or if his conduct gives just, reasons for doubting
the sincerity of his confession, then the reconciliation should not take
place until all doubts on this score have been removed. This does not
mean that the Church must give the applicant for readmission the
cold shoulder. Not at all. It must labor with him and encourage him.
And as soon as he can be readmitted without hesitation he must re-
ceive a hearty welcome.

It may be said here that if one has broken his relationship with

322

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

the Church by “resigning,” in spite of all the admonitions of the
Church, and subsequently desires to be reinstated, that such a one
should not be readmitted without the same personal desire and sin-
cere penitence. In many instances such persons should also be read-
mitted publicly with confession of their guilt.

2. Due acknowledgement of the congregation.

The article provides that the desire on the part of one excommuni-
cated to be readmitted, “shall be announced to the Congregation.”
Why should the congregation be informed? Article 78 itself gives
the answer to this question. “In order that (inasfar as no one can
mention anything against him to the contrary) he may with profes-
sion of his conversion be publicly reinstated.” The Consistory there-
fore makes this announcement to the Church, not merely as a matter
of information, but very definitely to gain its approval. It may be
said once more that Reformed Church government would regard the
Church as having certain God-given rights. The believers are not
minors. They have the anointing of the Holy One, and should be ac-
knowledged. The offices function for the Church, although upon the
authority which is Christ-given.

The announcement is made in order that he who may know of
reasons why the reconciliation should not take place may report the
same to the Consistory. Anyone knowing of such reasons must report
them. This is his Christian duty. If no one raises well-founded ob-
jections against the contemplated readmittance, then the reconcilia-
tion takes place with the approval of the whole Church.

The form for readmission contains an announcement which is to
be read to the Church some time previous to the date tentatively set
for the readmission, in which notice is given concerning the excom-
municated person's request and confession of penitence, and in which
the believers are charged to notify the Consistory in due time if they
have anything against the proposed readmission. The time for the
act of readmission in this first section of the Form is designated as
“the next time when by the Grace of God we celebrate the Supper
of the Lord.”

Supposing the banned person has moved to another locality, then
can he be readmitted in the Church of his new location? Indeed he
can. But the rules mutually agreed upon and entered into the Church
Order should be observed. That is to say, he can only be readmitted
by means of the Form for readmission. And his former Church in
which the excommunication took place should be acknowledged. This
former Church should give its approval. The fact of readmission
should, as a rule, be announced to the former Church. If the excom-
municated person lives in the same city or environment in which the
Church is located which excommunicated him, he should preferably
be readmitted by this same Church. The Consistory of the former
Church will, as a rule, know the facts in the case far better than the
Consistory of the new Church. After his readmission he can then re-
move to the Church of his new residence. If our Churches maintained
definite boundary lines, penitents should be readmitted by and in the
Church of their residence. But since boundaries are ignored and for-
gotten, readmission in and by the Church in which the transgression
occurred is proper, though not always necessary. If the former
Church objects to the readmission of an excommunicated member by
another Church it should definitely state its reasons. If no agreement

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

323

can be reached between the two Consistories, the Consistory of the
former Church should take the matter to Classis, namely the Classis
of the Church which desires to readmit the excommunicated party.
The readmission will, of course, not take place while the appeal is
pending.

3. The manner of reconciliation of those excommunicated.

In the consideration of this point we would first of all call attention
to what appears to be a very faulty translation. Our official Dutch
text of Article 78 reads, in harmony with the historic reading of this
article, “. . . in order that (inasfar as no one can mention anything
against him to the contrary) he may with profession of his conversion
be publicly reinstated, at the next celebration of the Lord’s Supper
. . .” (“. . . teneinde hij ten naastkomende Avondmale . . . openbaarlyk
met professie zyner bekeering weder opgenomen worde. . .”) The
words “at the next celebration of the Lord’s Supper” have been omit-
ted from the text, as will be noted.

Perhaps this omission was occasioned by the fact that the first
section of Article 78 states, that the announcement regarding the pro-
posed readmittance may be made “either before the celebration of
the Lord’s Supper, or at some other opportune time.” However, this
clause merely allows for necessary exceptions to the rule. Which
rule? That readmittance of excommunicated persons should take
place just before the Church celebrates the Lord’s Supper. This is
indeed a very appropriate time for readmitting excommunicated per-
sons. At the Lord’s Table the Church enjoys one of its most blessed
privileges here on earth. At the Lord’s Table, moreover, the unity of
the saints finds beautiful expression. Furthermore, excommunication
implies an excommunication from all the privileges and blessings of
the Church of Christ. Foremost of these is admittance to the Lord’s
Table. Consequently we conclude that this time for reconciling and
readmitting the excommunicated was well chosen by the men and
Churches of Reformation days: The words “at the next celebration of
the Lord’s Supper” should therefore be restored to the article. Only
urgent reasons should cause us to depart from the historic rule. For
example, an early removal to a distant locality, the awaiting Baptism
of a child of the repentant, etc.

Readmission, according to Article 78, shall take place “according
to the Form for that purpose.” The reference here is to the Form for
Readmission (cf. Psalter Hymnal, appended pages 97, 98). This Form
as well as that for excommunication is simple but rich in content.
These Forms should be studied for their simplicity and beauty, their
deep spiritual thought and their significant terminology. Seldom are
these Forms used. This is in part due to the fact that we are be-
ginning to weaken in our application of discipline. This is indeed a
great danger. Many denominations have undergone fearful corrup-
tion in the space of one or two generations because they weakened
in their application of discipline. Let us be on the look-out for this
evil. Let Church Visitors faithfully admonish negligent Consistories,
and not fail to report obvious neglect to the Classes which they rep-
resent.

324

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ARTICLE LXXIX.

When Ministers of the Divine Word, Elders or Deacons, have
committed any public, gross sin, which is a disgrace to the
Church, or worthy of punishment by the Authorities, the Elders
and Deacons shall immediately by preceding sentence of the
Consistory thereof and of the nearest Church, be suspended or
expelled from their office, but the Ministers shall only be sus-
pended. Whether these shall be entirely deposed from office,
shall be subject to the judgment of the Classis, with the advice
of the Delegates of the (Particular) Synod mentioned in
Article 11.

CONCERNING CENSURE OF OFFICE-BEARERS

1. Necessity far censure of office-bearers.

If an office-bearer makes himself guilty of a public, gross sin, he
makes himself worthy of discipline not only as an individual member
of the Church, but also as an office-bearer. If a Consistory finds it
necessary to censure an office-bearer as an individual member accord-
ing to the provisions of Articles 76 he should also be censured as an
office-bearer. The former does not make the latter unnecessary, but
rather calls for it. No one who has committed a public and gross sin
should be permitted to go to the Lord’s Table, but neither can such
a one function as office-bearer until full satisfaction has been given.

I Tim. 5:19 bids us not to receive an accusation against an Elder
except at the mouth of two or three witnesses. We should therefore
be very cautious when Elders (and other office-bearers) are accused.
But this passage does teach by implication that discipline regarding
office-bearers has a rightful place in the Church.

An office-bearer who has made himself guilty of gross public sins
has wrought disgrace upon the Church and to some extent has for-
feited his influence. He cannot continue to perform the duties of his
office uninterruptedly. If the sin is very grievous and offensive he
should be deposed. If less serious, he must make a hearty confession
of his sin before he can continue his work and his repentance should
be announced to the Church.

Personal discipline as stated does not exempt from discipline as an
office-bearer. If the former is necessary, the latter is also. But the
reverse is not always true. Sometimes it may be necessary to suspend
or even depose one from office by reason of a sin committed, but that
it is not necessary to apply discipline to him as an individual member.
If an office-bearer has made himself guilty of a gross public sin, but
clearly manifests sincere repentance, he need not be disciplined as an
individual member. Discipline aims at repentance before God and
reconciliation with God and His Church. If by God’s grace these ends
have already been attained why should he still be censured as a
member? But his sin may be of such a nature that great offense has
been given, so that for some time to come at least, he can no longer
function fruitfully as office-bearer. In that case he should be deposed
from office, although discipline according to Article 76 would be un-
necessary and out of place. Deposition under these circumstances
would also be necessary to remove as much as possible the measure
of disgrace which the sinning office-bearer has brought upon God’s
name and His Church.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

325

2. Which sins require discipline regarding office-bearers?

Article 79 answers, “Any public, gross sin, which is a disgrace to
the Church, or worthy of punishment by the Authorities/’ It may be
necessary to admonish office-bearers because of minor offenses com-
mitted. But these in and by themselves do not call for suspension and
deposition. For this reason Article 79 speaks of gross sins. Neither
is it always necessary to suspend or depose an office-bearer for a more
serious offense committed if the sin is not generally known. If an
office-bearer repents sincerely concerning a more serious, secret sin,
he need not be suspended or deposed. No public, open offense has
been caused and repentance is present. Therefore this article speaks
of “any public, gross sin.” In this connection it should be remembered
that certain sins which are at first secret, sometimes become public
because of the sinner’s obstinacy and refusal to repent.

The precise meaning and implication of the term “gross sins” is
given in Article 80. Here the qualifying statement, “which is a dis-
grace to the Churches, or worthy of punishment by the Authorities,”
is added. Not all offenses bring disgrace upon the Church. However,
when this is the case suspension from office is in order, and deposition
may be necessary. The term “Authorities” here refers to the govern-
ment. If one commits a sin for which he is liable to arrest and pun-
ishment by the civil authorities, then he has made himself worthy of
suspension or deposition as office-bearer.

3. How discipline regarding office-bearers should proceed.

The Elders and Deacons, so the article specifies, when they have
committed any public, gross sin, shall “immediately ... be suspended
or expelled from their office.” The Church Order does not mean to
say, “forthwith, without a fair investigation and unbiased hearing,”
but without first going to Classis. The word “immediately” regarding
Elders and Deacons is contrasted in this article with the more in-
volved procedure prescribed regarding the discipline of Ministers.

But no Consistory has the right to suspend or depose one of its
Elders or Deacons by itself. Inherently each Consistory does have
this right. For this reason we should not be surprised that the very
first redaction of the Church Order prescribed that Consistories could
and should suspend and depose office-bearers when necessary. The
Wezelian Convention, 1586, ruled that Ministers and Elders guilty of
grievous public sins (openbare schelmstukken en booze daden) should
be deposed by the Consistory without awaiting the advice of Classis.
(Chapter 8, Art. 12). The Synod of Emden, 1571, Church Order Ar-
ticle 33, ruled that Elders and Deacons who had made themselves
guilty of public sins, bringing disgrace and slander upon the Church
or punishable by the civil authorities, should be deposed from office
forthwith by the Consistory. The Church Order of Dort, 1578, main-
tained this position (Article 99). However, the Synod of Middelburg,
1581, Article 64, provided that Elders and Deacons should be deposed
only when their own Consistory and the Consistory of the nearest
Church judged this to be right. This provision gave the Churches an
additional safeguard against abuse and partiality. The Churches, in
the interest of fairness and good government, agreed to limit them-
selves in the execution of their inherent right. Henceforth no Elder
or Deacon would be deposed except the Consistory of the nearest
Church, as well as the Consistory to which the office-bearer in ques-
tion belonged, felt that deposition was in order.

Ministers, so the Wezelian Convention ruled, could also be deposed

326

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

by their Consistories alone. (See reference above). But the first
Synod, Emden, 1571, ruled that the Consistory should do no more
than suspend from office. The deposition of Ministers was referred
to the Classis. The Synod of Middelburg, 1581, ruled that Ministers
should be suspended only with the concurrent opinion of a neighbor-
ing Consistory. Their deposition was left to Classis. Thus matters
stand today.

The Church Order in the present article gives rules for four dis-
tinct situations, namely, the suspension of Elders and Deacons; the
deposition of Elders and Deacons; the suspension of Ministers; the
deposition of Ministers.

The suspension of Elders and Deacons. When a Consistory finds
that one of its number is guilty of a gross, public sin, it should meet
immediately to consider the case. If it is judged that suspension or
deposition is in order, it ought to notify the nearest Consistory that
its judgment is needed. The two Consistories should meet simultane-
ously and together to consider the case. Then each Consistory should
vote separately. If the judgment of both Consistories concur, if both
Consistories vote in favor of suspension, the decision stands and the
party concerned is notified to this effect. Almost needless to say, the
brother in question should be notified concerning the double Consistory
meeting to be held regarding his person, and he should have a full
right to speak for himself before both Consistories.

Ordinarily a period of suspension will be from three to six months.
In the meantime the suspended brother may not function as office-
bearer though he is still in office. The decree of suspension with rea-
sons should be given to the suspended office-bearer in writing and
should be read to the Church.

Deposition of Elders and Deacons. If the two Consistories sitting
in judgment regarding a certain office-bearer find that a certain
offense is so grievous that the brother in question cannot serve the
Church with edification even after a period of suspension of several
months, these Consistories may decide that immediate deposition is
in order. Consistories have the right to depose forthwith, for Article
79 rules that guilty office-bearers shall be “suspended or expelled
from their office.”

One who is suspended may not exercise the duties of his office while
the suspension is in force. One who is deposed or expelled from his
office has lost the office itself. Decisions for expulsion from office
should be announced to the Church.

Suspension of Ministers. The suspension of Ministers is required
when these make themselves guilty of the sins considered above.
Ministers, according to the agreement of the Churches contained in
Article 79, shall be suspended upon the concurring decision of the
two Consistories specified in the article. But, whereas the two Con-
sistories can decide that deposition of Elders and Deacons is in order,
these bodies can go no further than suspension regarding Ministers.
The deposition of Ministers is subject to the judgment of Classis.
This difference is not found in Article 79 because Ministers are better
than others, but because they have given themselves to the work of
the ministry for life and they have been ordained for life. A prema-
ture or mistaken decision to depose would therefore be a more serious
matter regarding a Minister, for himself and for the Churches, than
regarding an Elder or Deacon. Moreover, Ministers have received cer-
tain rights for and by all the Churches. They are allowed to admin-
ister the Word and the Sacrament in all the Churches upon request.
They have been admitted to the ministry upon the advice of all the

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

327

Churches through their representatives. Consequently it is well that
all the Churches are consulted before they are suspended or deposed
from office.

Suspension of Ministers will as a rule also require a period of three
to six months. At the end of the period of suspension the two Con-
sistories can lift the suspension and reinstate the Minister, or they
can extend the period of suspension, or they may find that the Minis-
ter in question should be deposed, in which case the matter goes to
Classis.

Deposition of Ministers. If the case is referred to Classis because
deposition from the ministry is deemed necessary, the Synodical Dele-
gates according to Article 11 must be requested to be present in order
that they may render their advice to Classis. If the Classis and
Synodical Delegates cannot come to agreement the matter goes to
Synod for disposition. While a case concerning a deposition is pend-
ing because a Classis and the Synodical Delegates according to Article
11 cannot agree, the Minister’s suspension from office continues. If a
Classis decides to depose and the Synodical Delegates concur, but the
Minister involved appeals to Synod, his case should remain in status
quo; that is, his suspension should be prolonged until Synod has ruled.
A Classis would have the right to proceed to deposition under such
circumstances, but unless the matter is urgent it is better to wait.

4. May a Classis depose Elders and Deacons?

Some have contended that a Classis may depose Consistories. The
present authors feel that no major assembly, according to Reformed
Church polity and the Church Order, has the right to depose a minor
assembly. The deposition of a Consistory, for example, by a Classis
or Synod would seem to be a violation of the integrity and of the
rights of the particular Church concerned, whereas the Church Order
in more than one article seeks to safeguard this integrity and these
rights. (Cf. Article 30, 84.) Moreover, Reformed Church government
does not tolerate group-disciplining. Discipline, according to our Re-
formed conception, is always individual and never communal.

Is it then permissible for a Classis or Synod to depose individual
office-bearers? Regarding Ministers Article 79 clearly stipulates that
a dual Consistory meeting may suspend a Minister. Furthermore,
the article reads, “Whether these shall be entirely deposed from office
shall be subject to the judgment of the Classis, with the advice of
the Delegates of the (Particular) Synod mentioned in Article 11.”
This provision is clear. No Minister shall be deposed unless the Classis
concerned judges that deposition is in order. Deposition of Ministers
“shall be subject to the judgment of the Classis.” And Classis shall
be guided in rendering its opinion by the advice of the Synodical dele-
gates according to Article 11. Without the concurring advice of these
delegates, no Classis may decide that a certain Minister should be
deposed. This last provision was added to Article 79 as an additional
safeguard by the Holland Churches in 1905, and by our Churches in
1914.

Regarding Elders and Deacons Article 79 specifies that these shall
be suspended or expelled from their office by sentence of their Con-
sistory and that of the nearest Consistory.

If any case is so involved and so complicated that the two Consis-
tories concerned judge that the judgment of all the Churches of the
Classis is needed, then the matter should be brought to Classis. In
such a case the Consistory is expected to abide by the decision of
Classis. The Consistory follows the advice of Classis. The Classis in

328

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

such a case has a full right to appoint certain delegates who are to
serve the Consistory with advice and who are to help the Consistory
to carry out the conclusions of the Classis.

If the case of an Elder or Deacon is brought to Classis by way of
appeal on the part of individual members of the Church, or on the
part of one or more consistory members, the appellants feeling and
claiming that the Consistory as a whole is negligent or in error, then
what is the correct procedure? Then Classis deliberates and draws
its conclusions. If the decision is to the effect that the Elder (s) or
Deacon (s) should be suspended or deposed, the Consistory concerned
is informed regarding this decision and proceeds to execute the judg-
ment rendered. Again, the Classis has a full right to appoint a com-
mittee to help the Consistory in the execution of its task. If a Con-
sistory feels that it cannot in good conscience accept the advice, it
may appeal to Synod. If Synod sustains the Classis the Consistory
should give immediate execution to the judgment of Classis. That is
to say, the Consistory should suspend or depose the office-bearer in
question. Failure to do so would bear dire consequences. For in such
a case those Consistory members and individual members of the
Church concerned who desire to adhere to the decisions of Classis and
Synod should meet and declare the deflecting or recalcitrant Consis-
tory members to be out of office, and new Elders and Deacons should
be elected in their place forthwith. An extraordinary congregational
meeting of this kind should be called under the guidance of classical
delegates, or of a neighboring Consistory, preferably the former, to
give assurance that all things will be done in good order.

If any Consistory member thus deposed refuses to acknowledge his
deposition and seeks to exercise his former rights, he makes himself
liable to discipline as an individual member.

If one or more deposed Consistory members, together with certain
adherents belonging to the Church concerned, refuse to honor the
acts of deposition and the election of new office-bearers, and when
these moreover begin to hold separate meetings for worship, Classis
should declare these members to be a schismatic group, outside of the
Christian Reformed denomination and having forfeited all rights and
privileges.

It is true that Article 30 specifies that matters which cannot be
finished by minor assemblies, though rightfully belonging to their
domain, become the business of the major assemblies. But in view of
the fact that the disciplinary articles of the Church Order clearly
specify how discipline regarding office-bearers is to be exercised and
in no way intimate that Elders and Deacons can be suspended or de-
posed by the major assemblies, we do not believe that the appeal to
Article 30 is justified. We believe that it is reasonable to assume
that the early Synods at which our Church Order originated purpose-
fully refrained from incorporating a provision in the Church Order
which would allow our major assemblies to suspend and depose Elders
and Deacons. As has been nointed out before, the early Reformed
Churches were eager to safeguard the integrity and the rights of the
particular Churches. The significant 84th article of our Church Order
used to be Article 1! Let us also recall that it was not until 1581
that the Churches decided that henceforth no Consistory would sus-
pend or depose an Elder or Deacon without the concurrent judgment
of its nearest neighbor Consistory. Furthermore, it cannot be denied
that the question of deposition of Elders and Deacons is an important
one. It is not unreasonable to assume that a provision permitting
major assemblies to depose Elders and Deacons was left out of Article

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

329

79 purposefully. For notwithstanding the fact that Article 79 tells us
how Elders and Deacons shall be deposed it does not provide for the
deposition of Elders and Deacons by Classes or Synods. And yet the
same Article does specify that Ministers shall be deposed by the judg-
ment of the Classis.

We believe, moreover, that it can be contended successfully that
the deposition of minor assemblies by major assemblies constitutes a
negation of the general office of all believers, which should begin
to function when certain abnormal situations arise, and that it like-
wise involves an infringement upon the right of reformation which
should ever be held inviolate by the Church of God.

We realize that both during the formative period of the Reformed
Churches and during their more advanced history, Classes and Synods
have sometimes deposed Elders and Deacons and even Consistories.
But no one would dare to claim that the Reformed Churches have
always been true to themselves in matters of church government and
that they have always interpreted their own Church Order correctly.
Precedents do not decide this issue either one way or the other. We
should seek to determine the basic principles fundamental to Reformed
denominationalism, and we should seek the correct historical and exe-
getical interpretation of the various articles of the Church Order
which concern this question. Then we should draw our conclusions as
to what is proper and improper.

5. Sundry matters.

The lifting of suspension should be done by the same bodies which
imposed suspension, namely, the combined Consistories.

Can those who have once been deposed from office be re-instated?
Deposed Elders and Deacons may be nominated and elected if suffi-
cient time has elapsed, if the brother in question has acknowledged
his wrong and has given sufficient evidence of his repentance, and if
the sin committed was not of such a nature that it will constantly
hinder him in his work and undermine his influence. Of these matters
the Consistory must judge. Re-instatement of Elders and Deacons
cannot occur in the sense that the act of deposition is revoked and
the brother concerned permitted to resume his place in the Consistory
to serve the balance of his unexpired term. This cannot be done, no
matter how penitent the brother may be.

No Consistory should nominate deposed office-bearers quickly and
lightly.

Regarding deposed Ministers Synod of 1918, Article 52 decided that
re-instatement must be effected by the Classis which acted in the
deposition. The Holland Synod of Gronigen, 1927, decided that a de-
posed Minister is not to be re-instated by Classis without the knowl-
edge and approval of the Particular Synod. It might be well if our
decision of 1918 (see above) were amended so that no deposed Min-
ister can be re-instated without the approval of the synodical dele-
gates according to Article 11.

The Holland Synod of 1927 also decided that it would not be ad-
visable to make general stipulations as to when a deposed Minister
should be re-instated. Each case should be judged on its own merits.
Classis should consider the question why the deposition took place,
whether true penitence be evident, whether reconciliation was made
and whether the deposed brother will be able to labor to the edification
of the Church of God and without detriment to the holy character of
the Church and the glory of God. No doubt this is wise counsel.

What we term re-instatement the Holland Synods call “beroepbaar

330

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

verklaren,” to declare eligible for a call. This indicates what the
manner of procedure should be.

He who erred in doctrine must be carefully examined before he is
declared eligible for a call. If there is a difference of opinion Synod
should judge.

It is necessary that the Churches act with great prudence, espe-
cially when sins have been committed which indicate a weakness of
will-power, steadfastness of character, and complete consecration,
such as adultery and drunkenness. .

Emeritus Ministers are also subject to suspension and deposition.
The Church which they last served and its Classis are responsible for
an emeritus Minister that needs -to be censured, since our emeritus
Ministers continue to be Ministers of the Church which they served
last, though they have been excused of some or all ministerial duties.

During the period of suspension a Minister is entitled to his salary,
but after his deposition, if that should follow, the Church has no finan-
cial obligations anymore.

ARTICLE LX XX.

Furthermore among the gross sins , which are worthy of being
punished with suspension or deposition from office, these are the
principal ones; false doctrine or heresy, public schism, public
blasphemy, simony, faithless desertion of office or intrusion
upon that of another, perjury, adultery, fornication , theft, acts
of violence, habitual drunkenness, brawling, filthy lucre; in
short, all sins and gross offenses, as render the perpetrators
infamous before the world, and which in any private member
of the Church would be considered worthy of excommunication,

SINS REQUIRING SUSPENSION OR DEPOSITION OF
OFFICE-BEARERS

1. The purpose of Article 80.

It is not the purpose of Article 80 to give us a complete registry
of sins worthy of censure in office-bearers. Article 80 merely enumer-
ates a number of sins so that the Churches may know which type of
sins may not be tolerated in office-bearers. Doubtless the list is as
long as it is because these things mentioned are indeed gross public
sins which merit censure. But the Church Order has in no way en-
deavored to be exhaustive here. For this reason the article also con-
cludes with the statement that “all sins and gross offenses as render
the perpetrators infamous before the world, and which in any private
member of the Church would be considered worthy of excommunica-
tion,” are worthy of suspension or deposition in office-bearers. The
enumeration is therefore given by way of example, although it should
not be forgotten that the sins enumerated are listed as being “the
principle ones” which call for censure in office-bearers.

2. The specific sins mentioned.

False doctrine or heresy. When one deviates from one or more of
the fundamental teachings of Holy Writ, as expressed in the confes-
sional standards of the Churches, and that consciously and purpose-
fully, he is guilty of false doctrine and heresy. The Church Order

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

331

does not refer to variations from generally accepted teachings but
which are not definitely expressed in our confessional writings. Nei-
ther does Article 80 refer to slight variations regarding subordinate
truths. Nor is it the implication that one who unintentionally, through
the use of a wrong term or otherwise, states a matter erroneously,
thereby makes himself worthy of discipline. The deviation must be
conscious and deliberate. However, though one has not taught or
spoken false doctrine deliberately and consciously, yet if he should
maintain the false views in question and refuse to acknowledge their
heretical and erroneous character, the error becomes conscious and
wilful, and worthy of discipline.

Public schism.^ This term concerns those, to use the words of our
Form for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, who raise “dis-
cord, sects, and mutiny in the Church.” Those who are guilty of public
schism virtually sever their connections with the Church and that
because of minor differences in doctrine or church government, or
merely because they are seeking self -advancement and vain glory.

Public blasphemy. He who speaks openly in an impious or irrever-
ent manner of God or things sacred is guilty of this sin.

Simony may be defined as the purchase or sale of ecclesiastical pre-
ferment. The word is derived from the account of Simon the Sor-
cerer, to be found in Acts 8:18-24.

Faithless desertion of office or intrusion upon that of another indi-
cates the sin of one who refuses to perform the duties of his office,
and particularly does this offense pertain to Ministers who forsake
their Church without proper release by Consistory and Classis, and
who without a proper call begin to labor in a Church or field belonging
to another.

Perjury is the assertion of a falsity under oath. He is guilty of
perjury who before God declares that a certain claim or statement is
true, while he knows that it is false.

Adultery is the violation of the marriage vow. The Dutch word is
echtbreuk, that is, the breaking of marriage. Technically adultery
may be defined as the sexual relationship of two persons, either of
whom is married to a third person.

Fornication is incontinence outside of holy wedlock, or illicit sexual
intercourse.

Theft refers to the sin of stealing, forbidden in the 8th Command-
ment.

Acts of violence refers to all disgraceful and sinful use of brute
force.

Habitual drunkenness. One who repeatedly drinks in excess is guilty
of this sin. No one who is a slave to strong drink can serve accept-
ably in the Consistory, even though he should never drink himself
drunk.

Brawling. This refers to engagements in uncalled-for fist fights and
all noisy, needless quarreling.

Filthy lucre refers to all dishonest gain.

I Tim. 3:3, Titus 1:7, and 2:3 and other passages condemn these
and other sins as intolerable in office-bearers.

All sins which cause one to lose his good name before the world
at large render an office-bearer worthy of suspension or deposition,
so Article 80 states. And again, any sins which would be considered
worthy of censure in any private member of the Church renders an
office-bearer worthy of suspension or deposition from office, so the
article concludes.

332

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY
ARTICLE LXXXI.

The Ministers of the Word , Elders and Deacons, shall before
the celebration of the Lord’s Supper exercise Christian censure
among themselves and in a friendly spirit admonish one another
with regard to the discharge of their office .

MUTUAL CENSURE

1. The significance of this ruling.

In Churches holding the hierarchical or episcopal system one office-
bearer has greater authority than another. Consequently the higher
office-bearers exercise supervision and jurisdiction over those that oc-
cupy lower offices. The archbishop supervises the bishop; the bishop
supervises the priest, etc. But the Reformed Churches are Presby-
terian also in the matter of supervision. The office-bearers are equal
in authority, each in his own sphere, and supervision is mutual. They
supervise each other, just as the Churches supervise each other (Ar-
ticle 44). Now Article 81 provides for this mutual supervision of
office-bearers.

The common term by which this mutual supervision has been known
for years back is censura morum, which Latin term signifies a censor-
ship or examination of conduct.

This mutual censure, according to Article 81, shall concern the
office-bearer’s discharge of his office. If an office-bearer is chargeable
with neglect of duty or with a wrong approach to his task, the matter
should be brought to his attention at the time of mutual censure.
Mutual censure concerns itself with the question: Do the Ministers,
Elders and Deacons perform their work as it ought to be done?

The matter of this article was first incorporated into the Church Or-
der by the Synod of Dort, 1578, Article 66. This article provided that
the investigation should concern “doctrine as well as life.” Nothing
was said about the execution of the office held. But Synod of ’s Gra-
venhage, 1586, Art. 74, altered the reading of the article. It deleted the
provision that the investigation should concern “doctrine as well as
life,” and provided that the investigation should concern “the discharge
of their office.” Thus Article 81 reads today. This does not mean that
the doctrinal position and general conduct of the office-bearers should
be forgotten and silenced at the time of mutual censure. But the
Synod of 1586 doubtlessly altered the Article as it did because it
wanted the office-bearers to remember that mutual censure concerns
the fulfilment of one’s duty as office-bearer first of all. However, one’s
belief and general behavior stands closely related to one’s execution
of his office, and the matter of doctrine and life cannot be ignored.
Nevertheless, the question which Dresents itself at the time of mutual
censure is this: Does any one of the office-bearers desire to criticize
one or more of his fellow office-bearers regarding their work as office-
bearers ?

From the foregoing it will be clear that essentially mutual censure
has nothing to do with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The
question is not whether any of the office-bearers have any grievances
against one or more of their fellow consistory members, grievances
namely which would hinder them in celebrating the Lord’s Supper
properly. Naturally, brethren in service should never go to the Lord’s
Table unless the right brotherly relation exists between them. But
this is true for all the believers, and should not require a special in-
vestigation. Nevertheless, the mistaken conception just noted is quite

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

333

general. Doubtless this is due to the fact that Article 81 specifies that
this investigation shall take place “before the celebration of the
Lord’s Supper.” This provision is not found in the Church Order
from the year 1586 on. It is not found therefore in the Church Order
redaction of Dort, 1618-19. Neither do the Churches of Holland have
it in their 81st article today. We went back to the redaction of 1578
and 1581 in 1914 and re-incorporated this phrase. Why this was done
we cannot say. Perhaps it was to give the Churches assurance that
mutual censure will be exercised in all Consistories at least four times
a year. If the original reading of Article 81 (1578) contained this pro-
vision because the Churches at that time deemed it necessary that
Consistories exercise mutual censure with a view to the Lord’s Supper,
an opinion which no authority seems to hold but which is not entirely
impossible, then yet it is certain that our Synod of 1914 did not re-
incorporate the phrase for this reason.

2. How mutual censure should be exercised.

The manner in which the Consistories were to exercise mutual cen-
sure has always been left to the judgment of each Consistory. Years
ago consistory members would absent themselves from the meeting,
one by one, in order that the others might freely express themselves
regarding the absentee. But this procedure should not be necessary.
The brethren should be willing to mention the matters that require
mention in the presence of the party concerned. This important in-
stitution should stand on such a high plane that all office-bearers will
accept with Christian grace and forbearance any corrections or im-
provements which his fellow office-bearers may be able to offer.

In some Consistories the president mentions the names of the office-
bearers, one by one, and asks each one of the other Consistory mem-
bers whether they have any criticism to offer. As a rule, however,
the president asks in general whether any of the office-bearers have
any criticism to offer to any of his fellow office-bearers regarding the
discharge of his office, a reply to this general question being asked of
each member individually.

Needless to say, mutual censure must never be turned into fault
finding. The purpose should be to assist each other for the benefit of
the Church and for the glory of God. And only then has one the right
to correct his fellow office-bearers if he can do it in love and fairness,
and if he is willing to receive reproof himself if necessary.

In some instances a private heart to heart talk may be preferable
to a discussion of the matter in Consistory. But any consistory mem-
ber has the full right to broach a matter at the time of mutual cen-
sure.

ARTICLE LXXXII.

To those who remove from the Congregation a letter or testi-
mony concerning their profession and, conduct shall be given by,
the Consistory signed by two.

CONCERNING MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATES

The matter of certificates is also mentioned in Article 61, which
article provides that none “who come from other (Christian Reformed)
Churches” shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper except they have

334

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

made a confession of the Reformed Religion, besides being reputed
to be of a godly walk. This rule requires that members leaving one
of our Churches and seeking to join another shall not be accepted
without a testimony from the Church which they are leaving, declar-
ing that they are Reformed in doctrine and godly as to conduct.
Article 61 therefore concerns certificates from the point of view of
the receiving Church.

Article 82 concerns certification from the point of view of the
Church to which the departing member belongs.

1. To whom certificates should be given.

Article 82 declares: “To those who remove from the congregation
a letter or testimony . . . shall be given.” This provision applies first
of all to those who are members-in-full, to those who have made pro-
fession of their faith. Strictly interpreted the article refers to these
only. The specific reference is to those who have come to maturity
and have confessed their faith and have received access to the Sacra-
ments and all the privileges of the Church. Members-by-Baptism only
are incomplete, immature members who thus far have failed to make
a profession or confession and concerning whose profession nothing
can therefore be said. But Article 82 speaks specifically of “their pro-
fession” concerning which testimony must be given: For this reason
we say that strictly interpreted Article 82 refers to members-in-full
only. Nevertheless Article 82 does not exclude those who by virtue of
their birth and Baptism stand related to the Church and under its
care. By implication also the immature, incomplete members are cov-
ered by Article 82. Only the statement which Consistories will make
concerning those who have not yet professed their faith will differ
from the statement issued concerning members-in-full. Concerning
members-by-Baptism Consistories can only certify that they have
been baptized and what their general, external behavior has been.
Such matters as Church attendance and catechism attendance should
be included in the testimony.

The question has often been asked: Should Consistories deliver
membership certificates to the Consistories to whom application for
membership is being made, or should the certificate be given to the
party whose membership is being certified so that he may deliver it
himself? Article 82 leaves no room for doubt here. We read: “To
those who remove from the congregation a letter or testimony . . .
shall be given . . .” The opening words: “To those who remove” have
sometimes been read to mean: “Concerning those who remove.” This,
however, is not the significance of the words. Church Order authori-
ties such as Rutgers, Bouwman, and Jansen are all agreed on this.
Our Synod of 1914 (Article 63) also came to the conclusion that
Article 82 provides that the departing parties shall themselves receive
their membership certificates to be given to the Consistory of the
Church to which they are going. The fact that this is the provision
of Article 82 becomes especially plain from our official and historic
Dutch text. We read: “Dengenen, die uit de Gemeente vertrekken, zal
eene attestatie of getuigenis . . . medegegeven worden . . .” which
literally translated would read: “An attestation or testimony shall
be given along with those who remove from the congregation . . .”
Reformed Church government regards believers not as minors but as
those who have come to years of majority. It recognizes the rights of
believers and encourages the exercise of these rights and responsibili-
ties. Our members should be active and aggressive and not passive.
Let those who remove request a certificate and let them deliver this

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

335

certification of their membership in person as they apply for member-
ship in the Church of their new environment. Only those who would
be inclined to hold that our particular Churches are but local divisions
of the one super Church, the denomination, can favor the procedure
of mailing certificates from one Consistory to another by preference.
For in this conception certification of membership is really a transfer
of membership from one division to another.

By this we do not mean to say that a Consistory should refuse to
mail a certificate directly to the Consistory of the Church a member
seeks to join. Not at all. If a member specifically prefers to have
his certificate sent to the Consistory of the Church of his new loca-
tion, there are no reasons why it should refuse to do so. For some
members this may be a very good procedure. But, this is the point,
the Church Order gives our members a right to personal delivery of
their attestations, and in the interest of self-assertion it is well to
encourage them in doing so.

If a member moves to another Church community and yet fails to
request a certificate, his attention should be called to his neglect.
The Consistory has no right to send a certificate to the Church with
which he should affiliate without the member’s specific request or
consent.

In case a member moves to distant parts and fails to request certi-
fication the Consistory should write to him, if need be, often. If one
of our Churches is found in the place of his new residence, the Con-
sistory of that Church should be informed and asked to call on the
negligent member, urging him to request certification, etc. If nothing
avails, then the membership of such a one would ultimately lapse. A
Consistory would be compelled at long last to announce to the Church
that the party or parties in question had by their indifference and
negligence, notwithstanding frequent admonitions, nullified their mem-
bership, and that consequently the Consistory had declared their
rights and privileges void and their names removed from the roll.
Such a procedure would not imply nullification on the Consistory’s
part of their Baptism and confession. God ever holds them respon-
sible for their privileges and promises. But it does mean that all their
rights as Church members have been revoked.

In case one moves from the Church, leaving no word or address
behind so that he cannot even be contacted by mail, then the Con-
sistory should endeavor, through relatives, friends, etc., to establish
contact with him. If all such attempts fail, at long last the Consistory
will cancel his membership rights, upon the basis of his neglect and
withdrawal, as indicated above.

Synod of 1910, Article 67, ruled that members (in full or only by
virtue of their Baptism) moving to localities where no Christian Re-
formed Church is found, may retain their membership in the Church
which they leave, if they notify the Consistory to this effect. If they
neglect to do this their membership lapses in one year and six weeks.
The membership of such members as are located where no Christian
Reformed Church is found must be transferred to the nearest Church.
If this is omitted their membership lapses after one year and six
weeks. Concerning these decisions of 1910 we would remark that it is
well that our members who must sometimes live at great distances
from our Churches can retain their membership with us. But we
should also urge our membership not to make such moves unless they
can give account of themselves before God, unless the circumstances
are urgent. Too many of our members have moved to distant localities
very unfavorable to their spiritual life and that of their children with-

336

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

out a real necessity. Furthermore, for such members to affiliate with the
nearest Christian Reformed Church is certainly advisable, provided
that that nearest Christian Reformed Church is near enough to per-
mit such members to worship with this Church occasionally, and near
enough for the Consistory of this Church to exercise some pastoral
care, through home visitation, etc. If the nearest Christian Reformed
Church is too far removed to permit this, the party in question can
much better retain his membership with the Church which knows him
and his situation somewhat. He who desires to retain his membership
with one of our Churches at a great distance should write to the Con-
sistory at certain intervals, say at least once a year, informing the
Consistory of his state and of his desires for the future. He should
also gladly help to contribute to the Lord’s cause through the Church
in which he retains his membership. Regarding the rule of one year
and six weeks, we would remark that these are very arbitrary figures.
There are no two cases alike. We believe that it is far better to judge
every case upon its own merits. If this is done Consistories may
feel that they must bear with certain parties for beyond this term of
one year and six weeks.

When one requests a certificate for another Church and also re-
ceives said certificate, does his membership in the certifying Church
then cease instantly? No, it does not. It has happened in the past
that a member received a certificate with the purpose of joining an-
other Church, but that the Church which he desired to join refused
to receive him, and that the Church which gave him a certificate
refused to recognize him as still a member. Thus members in good
and regular standing were suddenly rendered Churchless, and chil-
dren of God in Christ lost their access to the Sacraments, etc. This
situation rested largely on a misconception. It was assumed that if
one requested a membership certificate he was by that act severing his
relationship with the particular Church in question. Yet the certificate
always employed the present tense. Thus for example: “The Con-
sistory of the Christian Reformed Church hereby testifies

that is a member of this congregation . . .” He who

requests a certificate merely requests to have proof of the fact that
he is a member of such-and-such a Christian Reformed Church in or-
der that with this testimony he may join the Church of his new
residence. As soon as he has been received as member by the new
Church his membership in his former Church ceases, but not before.

The Synod of 1937 appointed a committee to look into this very
question and the matter of attestations in general. This committee
rendered a well-founded report to the Synod of 1939. We believe that
the form for certification of membership approved by the Synod of
1939 does justice to the various requirements of the Church Order
and sound Church polity. Let all the Churches use only this form, or
let them bear the distinctive features of this form in mind, whenever
they certify the membership of any of their members.

2. By whom certificates are to be issued.

Article 82 provides that certificates shall be given “by the Consis-
tory.” Requests for attestation or certification must therefore be con-
sidered and acted upon by the whole Consistory. Neither the Minister,
the clerk, nor the two together have the right to issue certificates of
membership. The testimony to be given must be that of the Church’s
ruling body, not that of one or two office-bearers.

Requests for certification by those who move should be placed as
soon as possible. Often members wait until after they have moved.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

337

Then perhaps a Consistory meeting has just been held when the re-
quest arrives. Thus there is often needless delay. In larger Churches
in which the Consistory does not know all the members sufficiently to
write a trustworthy certificate, the request for certification should be
announced to the Church, so that those of the congregation who may
known of reasons why the applicant should not receive a clear testi-
mony may inform the Consistory. If irregularities are discovered
these should be removed before a certificate is given, if this is at all
possible. If this is not possible, these irregularities should be noted
in the certificate so that the Consistory of the Church which the re-
moving member is joining may see to it that such irregularities are
cleared away. The Church should receive three or four days in which
to report objections against such as desire to leave the Church with
the clerk of the Consistory or a committee on certificates appointed
for this purpose.

3. That which a certificate should include.

The Church Order of 1578 specified (see Synod, Dort, 1578, Art. 25
or 10) that the pious and God-fearing should be recommended with
these words: that they shall have conducted themselves in the Church
of God in a Christian way, without giving occasion for complaint and
offense (datse in de Kerke Gods Christelyk [sonder opsprake en
ergenis] gewandelt hebben.) The Synod of Dort, 1618-19, Article 82,
speaks only of “een Attestatie ofte getuygenisse hares wandels” (an
attestation or testimony regarding their conduct.) However, conduct
is controlled by convictions. Doubtlessly the early Synods included un-
der “wandel” conduct, doctrine, or confession. This is also the opinion
of Jansen. * The Synod of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands,
in their Church Order redaction of the 1905 revised Article 82 to read:
“concerning their profession and conduct.” We accepted this reading
in 1914.

All members who by their profession and conduct have not given
occasion for well-founded complaints and who have not given offense
are entitled to receive a favorable recommendation, a “clean” attesta-
tion. All others, unless the matter can be cleared away satisfactorily,
receive a certificate which states facts as they are, so that the new
Consistory may do what is necessary.

Denominational unity, federative co-operation according to the unity
in Christ and the Word of God requires that the Churches honor and
accept each other’s certificates. Every certificate issued upon the re-
quest of the member concerned because he now lives within the
bounds of the Church which he seeks to join, must be accepted, even
though the member concerned is being disciplined, or may be known
to be rather critical and unreasonable in his attitudes. The sheep of
Christ’s pasture are not all equally loveable, but all of Christ’s sheep
must be guided and nourished. Christ loves all of His sheep. We may
not cast out any. But this same principle also demands that no Con-
sistory may manipulate certain members into the fold of a neighbor-
ing Church just because these members are hard to satisfy etc. Leav-
ing one Church and affiliating with another must always take place
upon sufficient reasons. When these sufficient reasons are present ap-
plication for membership must be accepted.

It should not escape our attention that Article 82 provides that to
those “who remove from the Congregation” certificates shall be given.
All authorities are agreed that this provision refers to those who

• Jansen, Korte Verklaring\ etc., 1923, p. 354.

338

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

actually remove out of the territory of one particular Church into
that of another. Strictly speaking, those who do not change their
place of residence, but merely desire to affiliate with another congre-
gation, have no right to a certificate. However, we have almost en-
tirely erased all boundary lines between our particular Churches — a
fact much to be regretted for more than one reason — and therefore
as a rule issue certificates also to those that do not remove. *

4. How certificates should be authenticated.

Synod of ’s Gravenhage, 1586, ordained that certificates should be
issued “under the seal of the Church, or, where no seal is, signed by
two.” Thus the matter of authentication remained until the Holland
Churches in the year 1905 caused the article to read “signed by two;
or in the case of letters, which are given under the seal of the Church,
signed by one.” Our Churches adopted this reading in 1914. How-
ever, the Synod of 1939 changed the article so that it now simply
provides that membership certificates shall be signed by two.

ARTICLE LXXXIII.

Furthermore, to the poor, removing for sufficient reasons, so
much money for traveling shall be given by the Deacons, as they
deem adequate. The Consistory and the Deacons shall, however,
see to it that they, be not too much inclined to relieve their
Churches of the poor, with whom they would without necessity
burden other Churches.

ASSISTANCE TO DEPARTING POOR
1. Origin of Article 83.

Pressure of circumstances gave birth to the provisions of Article
83. During the early days of the Reformed Churches of Holland the
Deacons were often called upon to help, besides their own needy poor,
those who passed through, traveling to some city or town in search
of work or to escape persecution, but lacking money for food and
shelter and for the continuance of their journey. Moreover, a large
number of transients called upon the Diaconates of the Reformed
Churches for help who were not of the faith but who claimed to be
fleeing for their lives and safety. Hundreds, it should be remembered,
were driven from their homes by the persecutions. These, in many
cases, had to leave all their possessions behind and were completely
destitute and certainly in need of help. And, as a rule, this help was
gladly given by the faithful to these refugees as they traveled on.
Now of this Christian helpfulness the tramps and transients to whom
we referred sought to profit. They feigned to be persecuted believers.

* Some of the considerations which lead us to say that our failure to
maintain boundary lines between our Churches is to be regretted are the
following: 1. Believers should manifest the body of Christ in the place
of their providentially determined residence. 2. It is against the intent
of Article 82. 3. It fosters the overgrowth of some Churches and the

undergrowth of others. 4. It promotes “floating”. 5. It promotes a one-
sided development. (Birds of a feather flock together.) 6. It stimulates
unholy competition. 7. It promotes slothfulness in catechism attend-
ance. 8. It promotes needless Sunday travel. 9. It constitutes a prac-
tical denial of the communion of saints.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY 339

These impostors took much money intended for needy poor and
refugees.

Now in order to counteract these evils the first Synod, Emden, 1571,
decided that all who moved from one place to another should carry
with them an attestation or certificate. Those who failed to show a
good attestation should from henceforth not expect help from the
Diaconates of the various Churches. If anyone without an attestation
claimed that the persecution prevented him from even securing the
necessary document, then the Churches should examine them very
carefully regarding their faith, etc., before accepting their testimony.

If it appeared that an applicant for an attestation was moving
needlessly, and that his change of residence would most likely reduce
him to poverty so that he would become dependent on the Deacons,
then no attestation was to be given. He was urged not to move.

Attestations, so the Synod decided, should indicate the full name
of the holder, his native country, trade, reason for moving, time spent
in the Church giving the attestation, conduct, date of departure, des-
tination, etc. It was furthermore provided that those who moved
should receive money sufficient to bring them to the next Reformed
Church through which their journey would lead them. Each Church
should write on the attestation how much money had been given them,
by whom, when, etc. At the end of their journey the Reformed Church
there would help them, and also destroy the attestation. *

All these provisions were ultimately reduced to one brief article,
our present 83rd Article.

We may conclude therefore that Article 83 owes its origin in the
first place to the large numbers of impostors who sought and gained
relief under pretense of being Reformed refugees or poverty stricken
fellow-believers. In the second place, due to want and poverty and to
the economic upheaval caused by wars and persecutions, large num-
bers sought for work and improvement elsewhere. But for many of
these, search for economic betterment ended in complete destitution,
with the result that the Churches were thus burdened unnecessarily.

These circumstances occasioned the adoption of the rules noted
above, of which Article 83 is a remnant and summary. After the year
1572, when the persecution ceased, elaborate stipulations were less
necessary.

2. Significance of Article 83.

Article 83 now pertains to our ordinary needy ones. If any of our
poor desire to move and if the Deacons feel persuaded that there are
sufficient reasons for their departure, then these poor are entitled to
as much help as the Deacons shall deem adequate. Until 1905 for the
Churches in Holland, and until 1914 for our Churches, Article 83 stipu-
lated that the amount given to departing poor should be noted on
the reverse side of their attestation or certificate. Now, however, this
is no longer required. Those who stand in need of traveling expenses
are not so numerous, and the Deacons should exercise good will and
confidence toward those who are worthy of the Church’s help.

3. The warning included.

The conclusion of Article 83 is an addition of the years 1905 and
1914. “The Consistories and the Deacons shall, however, see to it
that they be not too much inclined to relieve their Churches of the
poor, with whom they would without necessity burden other Churches.”

* Church Order, Synod of Emden, 1571. Art. 44-47.

340

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

It is a privilege for any Church to help in the relief of distress and
poverty. This is a beautiful task which we may perform for Christ,
the merciful High Priest. But there is a human side to this work of
mercy. Sometimes the work of the Deacons becomes very heavy. Then
the Consistory or the Deacons might lose sight of the glory of the
task of supplying Christ’s needy ones with their necessities, and they
might encourage the poor to move elsewhere when there is no security
that such needy ones will be able to support themselves in the loca-
tion suggested. Against this practice Article 83 warns. Each Church
must support its own poor, if need be through the assistance of
neighboring Churches. And only if there is a reasonable expectation
that the family or individual in question really will be much better
off in the new location should the Consistory and Deacons encourage
the move. Almost needless to say, no Church will ever encourage any
of its poor to move to a new location because economic betterment
may be expected if the financial opportunity would involve at the
same time a spiritual loss. It is better to be out of work but with
God’s people than to be regularly employed but in the midst of the
world and far removed from God’s people.

Each Church must support its own poor as noted above, but there
are partial exceptions to this rule. For instance, when one in need
of help moves to an institution of mercy such as Bethesda at Denver,
then he should affiliate with one of our Denver Churches, but the
Church from which he comes should remain responsible for his sup-
port.

When one in need leaves his home Church under extraordinary
circumstances and for a Church which is already heavily burdened
with needy ones from many places, then the Diaconate of the Churches
from which such needy ones hail should correspond with the Diaconate
of the Church of which the party concerned becomes a member, and
agree to forward the necessary amount weekly or monthly so that
the Deacons of the Church to which the needy brother or sister now
belongs may supply his need adequately.

ARTICLE LXXXIV.

No Church shall in any way lord it over other Churches , no
Minister over other Ministers , no Elder or Deacon over other
Elders or Deacons .

EQUALITY OF CHURCHES AND OFFICE-BEARERS

In Article 17 the Church Order stipulates, regarding Ministers,
Elders, and Deacons, that equality “shall be maintained with respect
to the duties of their office and also in other matters as far as pos-
sible . . .” Article 84 goes beyond Article 17 in that it rules out all
hierarchical practices both as to Churches and as to Office-bearers.
Article 84 stipulates that there shall be no lording, no domination,
no assumption of authority of one Church over another and of one
office-bearer over another. First let us consider the origin of this
article and then its significance.

1. The origin of this ruling.

The provision of Article 84 is all important and goes back to the
very origin of the Reformed Churches. Dr. F. L. Rutgers very cor-

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

341

rectly calls careful attention to utterance and decision taken at the
Wezelian Convention, 1568, the first gathering of Church leaders be-
longing to the Reformed Church of Holland and nearby territories.
Chapter IV, Article 7 of the conclusion of Wezel provides, among
other things, that elected Elders shall promise “not to employ domi-
nation, neither regarding the Ministers nor regarding the congrega-
tion . . (Cf. also Chapter IV, Art. 9.)

In Chapter V, Article 19 this same Convention definitely limits the
authority of Classes and safeguards the rights of the individual
Church. We read: “Nevertheless we do not here acknowledge the
classical gatherings to have jurisdiction (recht) over any Church or
its offices, except these shall permit it of their own accord, in order
that the Churches may not be robbed against their will of their juris-
diction (recht) and authority (gezag).

And once more the gathering at Wezel, doing preliminary and pre-
paratory work with a view to definite ecclesiastical confederation and
co-operation, decided that “evident attempts at tyranny over the
Church” were not to be tolerated in any Ministers. (Chapter VIII,
Article 14.) It was also decided that the Classical gatherings to be
held should preferably meet in different Churches and not always in
the same Church, “partly to avoid domination of one Church over the
other . . .” (Chapter VIII, Art. 20.)

From all these early expressions it is plain that the Churches set
themselves to safeguard the rights and individuality of the particular
Churches. They made it very clear that they were aiming at denomi-
national co-operation, not a unification of many particular Churches
into one super-Church, vested with supreme jurisdiction over its vari-
ous subdivisions.

The maintenance of the jurisdiction and the individuality of each
Church was seemingly so much the concern of these early Reformed
Churches that they sought to safeguard these rights in the very first
article of the Church Order adopted by the first regular Synod (Em-
den, 1571). This article reads: “Geen Kerke sal over een ander Kerke,
geen Dienaar des Woorts, geen Ouderling, noch Diaken, sal d’een
over d’ander heerschappije voeren, maar een yegelyk zal hen voor alle
suspicien, en aanlokkinge, om te heerschappen wagten.” (No Church
shall dominate over other Churches, no Minister of the Word, Elder
or Deacon shall dominate the one over the other, but every one shall
guard himself against all suspicions and enticements to dominate.)

Occasion for placing this all important article upon the foreground
may have been the fact that many of the Churches had fears and
scruples against the holding of Synods. The Churches of the province
of Holland especially hesitated to co-operate. They feared that the
particular Churches would lose their independence. Dr. F. L. Rutgers
mentions that it required much effort to get the Churches, both those
“under the cross” of persecution and those driven to neighboring
lands by the persecution, to co-operate in holding a Synod. * Article
1 of the Church Order of Emden (1571) now gave the Churches the
assurance that denominational affiliation and co-operation did not at
all aim at domination, and that all domination, the lording of one
Church over the other, or of one office-bearer over another, stood con-
demned in the very opening article of the Church Order. This article
retained its place in the Church Order, although perhaps for reasons
of logical sequence it was soon given a place in the department of
Discipline, as Article 84.

• Cf. Rutgers, College Voordrachten, 1918, p. 153.

342

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

At the same time we may believe that the Churches of 1571 formu-
lated the article quoted above because they desired to take a definite
stand against Rome with its hierarchical system. Just because one
Church was permitted to rule over another, and one office-bearer was
permitted to rule over another office-bearer, the hierarchical system
of Rome had become possible. Thus corruption had received a mighty,
tyrannic weapon. Because the early Christian Churches had yielded
their God-given authority and individuality and had been transformed
into local subordinate sub-divisions of a great super- Church, general
corruption and domination had become possible. The Reformation
Churches desired no duplication of this error. Neither did they favor
the appointment of Superintendents. Certain English and German
Churches (Episcopalian and Lutheran) had appointed Superintendents.
The Reformed Churches of these countries were urged by their gov-
ernments to accept some system of superintendency. And these Re-
formed Churches in England and Germany had yielded to some extent.
The Reformed Churches in Holland disapproved of this. They desired
that every Church should retain its individuality and that no Church
should be elevated as to authority above the other Churches. And so
also the Reformed Churches in Holland insisted that no office-bearer
should rule over another office-bearer. Biblical equality was to be
maintained. Every tendency to hierarchism was to be avoided.

Let us add right here that we agree heartily with Dr. F. L. Rutgers
when he says that although Article 84 gives expression to one of the
fundamental principles of Reformed Church government, it is not the
only church governmental principle which governs our denominational
co-operation. In and by itself Article 84 might be used to plead the
cause of Independentism. But Article 84 may not be isolated from
other articles of our Church Order regarding our major assemblies,
discipline, etc. * Such an erroneous isolation of Article 84 might easily
lead one to conclude that in the Reformed system Classes and Synod
can only advise and that these bodies cannot take authoritative deci-
sions. Nothing could, however, be further from the truth. (Cf. Art.
36, etc.)

2. The significance of the ruling.

By indicating the origin of Article 84 we have also indicated its
purpose and significance somewhat. Briefly stated it may be said that
in Article 84 the Reformed Church declared that each particular
Church is an individual and complete manifestation of the body of
Christ. The essence of the Church of Christ is found in every par-
ticular Church. Consequently all Churches are essentially on par, and
lording on the part of one Church over another cannot be tolerated.
The same holds for all office-bearers. All Churches and all office-
bearers are co-ordinate as to their authority, and all Churches and
office-bearers are equally subordinate under Christ.

Moreover, Article 84 tells us specifically and emphatically that de-
nominational union does not cancel the individuality of the particular
Churches. Reformed Church polity does not dissolve the various local
Churches into one authoritative super-Church. The particular
Churches have voluntarily confederated themselves in order that they
might work together in Classes and Synods. For which purpose ? To
assist each other and to co-operate regarding two things: Matters
which the particular Churches cannot finish by themselves, and mat-
ters which concern the particular Churches in common.

Cf. Rutgers: College Voordrachten, 1918, p. 156.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

343

It should be well understood that each local Church affiliating itself
with the confederacy or denomination by that very act agrees to ac-
knowledge the authority of the united Churches as functioning
through Classes or Synods. So far the particular Churches have sub-
ordinated their own inherent authority to the authority of all the
Churches functioning through major assemblies. The particular
Churches have agreed beforehand to submit themselves to the opinion
of the majority, except when they are convinced before God that the
conclusion of the majority is contrary to the Scriptures, or contrary
to the rules of government agreed upon (Church Order). Except for
this voluntary, self-imposed limitation, denominational unity and co-
operation does not infringe upon the freedom and individuality of
the local Churches. And only inasfar as the Church Order agreed
upon limits the local Churches in the exercise of their native rights
are the local Churches limited in this respect. Their individuality in
no wise and in no sense of the word is cancelled. *

It should also be very clear from this article that according to the
Reformed conception, one office is not to be regarded higher than an-
other. The ministry of the Word, the office of the eldership and the
office of the Deacons all stand on par. Only the work assigned to each
differs. But a Minister is not a bishop over the Elders. Neither do
the Elders function as bishops over the Deacons.

ARTICLE LXXXV.

Churches whose usages differ from ours merely in nour
essentials shall not be rejected .

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF KINDRED CHURCHES
1. History of this article.

Jansen is of the opinion that historically Article 85 goes back to
the Wezelian Convention, 1586, Chap. I, Art. 9-11; and Synod of Em-
den, 1571, Art. 21. However, these articles refer only to non-essen-
tials, or indifferent usages practiced by the various particular
Churches within the group then meeting in Convention and Synod.
The assemblies at Wezel and Emden said nothing concerning other
denominations or groups of Reformed Churches, whereas Article 85
does exactly that. Article 85 says nothing concerning the toleration
which Churches within our denomination have agreed to observe to-
ward each other in matters that are non-essential, but it stipulates
that Churches not belonging to our denomination shall not be “re-
jected” because of things that are non-essential.

Article 85 was adopted, so we may conclude, because the Reformed
Churches of Holland desired to acknowledge the Reformed Churches
of other lands as sister Churches. Article 72 (or 20) of the Synod
of Dort, 1578, is the first reading of our present Article 85. This 72nd
article speaks only of other Churches in general. But the Synod of
Middelburg, 1581, (Art. 46) caused the expression “other Churches
to read, “foreign Churches.” This reading of 1581 was accepted by
the Synod of Dort, 1618-19, and this redaction is still in force today
in the Holland Churches. It reads: “In non-essential things, the for-

• Cf. Jansen, Xorte ,Verklarixlg,, 1923, p. 359, 360.

344

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

eign Churches, which maintain other usages than we do, shall not be
rejected.” In our revision of 1914 we left out the adjective “foreign”
inasmuch as we wanted the article to apply to Reformed denomina-
tions right in our own country, as well as to Reformed Churches of
other countries.

2. Which non-essentials Article 85 refers to.

The non-essentials of Article 85 refer to ecclesiastical usages. It
does not refer to doctrinal or ethical non-essentials, for no doctrine
and no ethical, moral, precept is non-essential. The expression “for-
eign Churches” (de Buytenlandtsche Kerken) during the post-Refor-
mation era always referred to Churches holding the Reformed faith.
It referred to the Reformed Churches of France, Switzerland, Ger-
many, and England. Doctrinally these Churches were one. They were
all the fruit of the Calvinistic reformatory movement, the natural
leaders of which were John Calvin and his Genevan school. Moreover,
the word “usages” or Article 85 used to read “ritibus,” in the original
Latin text. This Latin word refers definitely to rites, that is, eccle-
siastical costumes or usages. So, for example, some Ministers at Bap-
tism would sprinkle the person baptized three times; others only once.
In some Reformed Churches the communicants stood as they partook
of the Lord’s Supper; in others the communicants sat. Some desired
that a Scripture passage should be read during communion; others
favored the singing of psalms. Now, regarding all such and like
questions, no Churches of other lands should stand condemned (Latin,
damnandae non erunt . . .) by the Reformed Churches of Holland.
They were to be regarded as Reformed Churches, for these ritualistic
differences were non-essential. Article 85, therefore, refers to eccle-
siastical usages which are of minor importance. It does not refer to
doctrinal matters or matters of Church polity. It refers to matters
which the Word of God and apostolic example have left to the various
Churches to decide. Things which the Word of God prescribed, or
which are clearly indicated by apostolic example, or which are logical-
ly deduced from the teachings of the Bible, are never indifferent, non-
essential.

This acknowledgment of other Churches was more than theory to
these early Reformed Churches of Holland. Witness the fact that the
foreign Churches were all invited to co-labor with the Synod of Dort,
1618-19, in regard to the Arminian disputes. Various foreign Churches
sent able delegations which took an active part in this all important
international Synod.

It may be remarked here that no things are “adiophora” strictly
speaking. Essentially many things are indifferent. But practically
very few ecclesiastic matters are indifferent. Generally speaking, for
example, whether the second service is held on Sunday afternoon or
on Sunday evening is a matter of indifference. But for a local Church
it is not indifferent, for services should be held at hours which enable
the largest number of members to attend regularly.

By implication our Churches in Article 85 do reject or condemn
those Churches which differ from us in essential matters. We reject,
for example, Baptist, Methodist, and Lutheran Churches. We heartily
acknowledge them as Churches of Jesus Christ as long as they confess
Christ as their only Saviour according to the Scriptures and accept
God’s Word as their infallible standard for doctrine and life. But we
do not acknowledge them as Reformed Churches, and consequently we
do not give them a voice and vote at our assemblies, and we do not
accept members from these Churches upon their testimony, etc.

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

345

Under present day circumstances full-fledged acknowledgment is
not even accorded to all Reformed and Presbyterian Churches inas-
much as some of these bodies have neglected the exercise of discipline
and have tolerated false doctrine. In theory, according to their official
standards and creeds they are Reformed, but in practice they are not.
The only Churches with which we maintain full and unconditional
correspondence are the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands and
the Reformed Churches of South Africa.

ARTICLE LXXXVI.

These Articles , relating to the lawful order of the Churchy
have been so drafted and adopted by common consent , that they
(if the profit of the Church demand otherwise) may and ought
to be altered \ augmented or diminished. However, no particular
Congregation, Classis, (or Synod) shall be at liberty to do so,
but they shall show all diligence in observing them, until it be
otherwise ordained by the General Synod.

REVISION AND OBSERVANCE OF THE CHURCH ORDER

This final article was added to the Church Order by the Synod of
Middelburg, 1581, and has been maintained unchanged by the Churches
of Holland. Our Churches have also maintained this article, the
Synod of 1914 merely placing the words “or Synod,” between paren-
thesis since this expression refers to Particular Synods, which we
do not yet have, and eliminating the word “National” from the ex-
pression “by the General or National Synod.”

The article as it now reads was drafted by the Synod of 1581, but
the Wezelian Convention already adopted a concluding article giving
expression to the same thoughts in many more words. Reformed
Churches were committed to the principles of Article 86 from their
very origin.

1. The nature and purpose of the Church Order indicated.

Article 86 first of all informs us that the foregoing 85 articles relate
or concern the lawful order of the Church. The Church Order seeks
to regulate the affairs of the Church, not those of the state or of com-
munity affairs. The articles of the Church Order are ecclesiastical
rules of order. And the purpose of these articles is the establishment
and maintenance of good order in the Church of Christ. (Cf. also
Art. 1.) The Church Order aims at the lawful, regular, well-ordered.
Biblical organization of the Church of Christ. The word “Church” in
the expression: “relating to the lawful order of the Church,” does not
refer to a local or particular Church, nor to the confederacy or de-
nomination of Churches but to the Church of Christ, the sum total of
the believers adhering to the Reformed faith and living within the
domains reached by the Churches adopting these articles. The word
“Church” cannot apply to a local Church, as all agree. Neither does
the word refer to the denomination, for in that case a plural form
would have been used. However, the original Latin, Dutch, and French
texts all use the singular, as Rutgers points out* (ecclesiae ordinem;

* Dr. F. L. Rutgers: College-Voordrachten, 1918, p. 178.

346

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

ordeninge der Kerken [genitive singular]; l'drdre legitime de l'Eglise).
The Church of Christ, the believers, must be organized into various
particular Churches living in close and Biblical co-operation with each
other. The offices must be instituted and the Word and Sacraments
must be administered wherever God in His grace calls men and women
unto Him. And these various particular Churches must live and work
together in close harmony advising and assisting each other and rec-
ognizing the authority invested in each by God and the leadership of
the Spirit promised to each; acknowledging particularly this authority
and leadership as exercised and enjoyed by the major assemblies,
Classes and Synods. All things must be done decently and in good
order. In all things the precepts and examples of God’s Word must
be respected. For these purposes the foregoing 85 articles have been
adopted.

2. Adopted by common consent.

In the second place Article 86 tells us that the articles of the Church
Order were adopted by common consent. (Latin, mutus consensu;
Dutch, gemeen accoort.) This does not mean that every one of the
delegates to the assembly adopting the Church Order favored the
adoption of every article and every stipulation. But it does mean
that all the delegates agreed to abide by the decision of the majority.
For a time the assemblies would vote twice regarding all issues. The
first vote merely established the opinion of the majority. The second
vote made the adoption of the matter at hand unanimous, the minor-
ity conforming itself to the majority. Thus the Church Order articles
were adopted by mutual consent, with common accord. In manciple
this is still our method of procedure at our assemblies. Confer our
remarks regarding this matter on page 144 and 145.

3. Alterations possible and sometimes proper.

In the third place Article 86 tells us that the articles of the Church
Order may and sometimes ought to be altered, augmented, or dimin-
ished. The articles have been “so drafted and adopted by common
consent” that changes are possible. In other words, it was clearly
understood when the Church Order was written and adopted that
changes could be made and would have to be made at times. The
articles of the Church Order are no hard and fast rules which cannot
be changed. They are no laws of Medes and Persians. They are rules
to maintain good order and to promote the spiritual welfare of God’s
people. If good order and the welfare of God’s people require a
change, a change should be made. This was understood from the very
start and with this proviso in mind the Churches adopted the rules.

This is the significance of the clause, “if the profit of the Church
demand otherwise.” If at any time, through change of circumstances,
the rules of the Church Order hinder the Churches, and are no longer
to their true profit, then a change may and must be made.

As stands to reason, that which is based on unchangable precepts
of God’s own Word will always be to the profit of the Churches, and
should never be changed, though some men may at times call for a
change because seemingly the “profit of the Churches” demands a
change. But all articles which are merely rules regulating matters
not expressly mentioned in the Bible, or for which there are no defi-
nite Biblical examples, are changeable.

Changes should not be introduced without due consideration. Fre-
quent and hasty changes in the Church Order make for instability.
It tends to undermine the authority of the Church Order. But neither

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

347

should we hesitate to make changes obviously necessary. Let there
be a free discussion and thorough consideration of changes that may
appear to be necessary. Then if the Churches are convinced that a
change is needed, let no false conservatism hold us back. But again,
frequent changes are disturbing. And let us watch our step, Alle
verandering is geen verbetering!, as the Dutch say. (Not every
change is an improvement!)

Our English redaction of 1920 here reads: “If the profit of the
Church demand otherwise.” Our official Dutch redaction of 1914 is
true to the original. It reads: “If the profit of the Churches demand
otherwise.” The English translation in this instance is clearly a mis-
take. If ever a new redaction of our English translation should be
adopted this mistake should be corrected.

4. How only may alteration be made?

No particular Church or Classis has the right to make changes in
the Church Order. Only Synod, representing all the Churches which
drafted and adopted the Church Order shall have the right to make
changes. This is reasonable. Disorder would result if the minor as-
semblies would begin to revise the Church Order. Consequently the
Churches agreed in Article 86 to introduce no changes, except through
the general Synod.

We should also be careful not to make decisions which virtually set
provisions of the Church Order aside, for such decisions are actually
changes in the Church Order, although the Church Order is left intact
formally.

When a change in the Church Order is deemed necessary the matter
ought to be discussed in our Church papers, and at Elders’ confer-
ences, Men’s Societies, etc. Then the matter should be brought to
Classis. If the Classis agrees that the matter is worthy of Synod’s
consideration the Classis should overture Synod. Matters may of
course be brought to Classis forthwith. But we deem a discussion and
a careful consideration of the issues involved to be desirable in most
cases. Matters concerning changes in the Church Order may also be
brought directly to Synod by individual Consistories. (Cf. Art. 30.)
But as a rule it is better to bring the matter to Classis first.

5. Observance required.

In the fifth place, this final article of the Church Order requires
that the Churches and Classis “shall show all diligence in observing
them,” i.e., the 85 foregoing articles. The Churches and Classes are
therefore in duty bound to observe the rulings of the Church Order.
The Church Order is not a book of iron-clad laws, it is not a set of
legal laws which must be applied no matter what the result might be.
These rules have been adopted to build the Churches, not to break
them. Discretion and consideration must always be used. But the
Church Order does consist of rules of good order to which all have
agreed and which all must keep, “until it be otherwise ordained by
the General Synod.” If in any particular situation the observance of
the Church Order is a physical impossibility or would clearly create
harm and disorder, a Consistory or Classis is free to suspend the
rule for that instant, if at least the article in question does not con-
cern a definite principle of Holy Writ. But even so it would be well
in most instances to gain classical or synodical approval for such ex-
ceptional procedure.

348

THE CHURCH ORDER COMMENTARY

It sometimes happens that individuals and Churches make a great
deal of the expression “the profit of the Churches.” Now surely the
adopted rules exist for the sake of the Churches, and not the Churches
for the rules. And “the profit of the Churches” should guide us in
our deliberations and conclusions. But this phrase should not be used
to set aside clearly expressed rules of the Church Order. If altera-
tions are needed, Synod should so decide. For the rest, let us show
all diligence in observing the brief, simple, time-tested rules of our
honored Church Order. This we have agreed to do, and this will be
to the best interest of the Churches.

INDEX

Agenda

Value of sending previous to meetings, 203f.

Alms and contributions of charity.

Significance of these terms, 114f.; when offerings should be taken,
115.

Amusements, Worldly

Stand of Christian Reformed Church on , 253f., 297f.; correct

approach to synodical decisions of 1928, 299; and Art. 72 Ch.

O., 299.

Anabaptists

Contrasted with Reformed fathers, 13; and trained ministry,

48; errorists, not heretics, 84; and their baptisms, 236.

Appeal

Why right of provided for, 141; when right of ...... exists, 141;

to which body? 141f.; time limits for , 142; methods to

be followed, 142; and representatives, 142f.; must minor as-
semblies await action pending an ? 143; appeals and protests,

grievances and complaints, 202f.

Approbation

Congregation must give when a Minister is called, 30, 40; how

to be sought by Consistory, 30; how objections should be regis-
tered, 30; final of elected candidate, when? 31; time required

for before an election, 31; documents needed at Classis for ap-

proval of call accepted, 38; of elected Elders, 105f.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Church order commentary"

See other formats